People v. Oden
Docket 2023-06269
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02677
- Docket
- 2023-06269
Appeal from a County Court judgment convicting defendant of disorderly conduct after a jury trial and imposing sentence
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Jaquan Oden’s conviction for disorderly conduct under Penal Law § 240.20(3) after a jury trial. Oden was acquitted of a separate disorderly conduct count under § 240.20(6) that alleged failure to disperse. The court rejected arguments that the conviction was legally insufficient or against the weight of the evidence because the disputed dispersal order was an element only of the acquitted charge, not the conviction. The court also found defense counsel effective and upheld the denial of a mistrial, concluding the prosecutor’s improper remark was cured by immediate instructions to the jury.
Issues Decided
- Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support conviction for disorderly conduct under Penal Law § 240.20(3)
- Whether the conviction was against the weight of the evidence based on an alleged lack of a lawful order to disperse
- Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel
- Whether the court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial based on an allegedly improper prosecutorial comment
Court's Reasoning
The court explained that the challenged issue about a lawful order to disperse relates to the § 240.20(6) charge of which the defendant was acquitted and is not an element of the § 240.20(3) offense of using abusive or obscene language in public. Because that factual dispute did not undermine the elements of the convicted offense, the sufficiency and weight challenges failed. The record showed meaningful representation by defense counsel, so ineffective assistance claims were denied. Although the prosecutor made an improper remark, the trial court promptly gave curative instructions and reasonably exercised its discretion in denying a mistrial since the error did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
Authorities Cited
- Penal Law § 240.20(3)
- Penal Law § 240.20(6)
- People v Benevento91 NY2d 708
- Strickland v. Washington466 U.S. 668
Parties
- Appellant
- Jaquan Oden
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.
- Attorney
- Steven A. Feldman (for appellant)
- Attorney
- Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and Monica M.C. Leiter of counsel) (for respondent)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-29
- County Court judgment date
- 2023-05-30
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult appellate counsel about further review
If the defendant wants to pursue further appellate relief, he should consult counsel about seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or pursuing any other post-conviction remedies.
- 2
Consider post-conviction motions if applicable
If there are new grounds (e.g., newly discovered evidence or constitutional claims not raised on direct appeal), counsel can evaluate motions for post-conviction relief.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed Oden’s conviction for disorderly conduct based on using abusive or obscene language in public and rejected his challenges to the verdict and counsel’s performance.
- Was Oden convicted for refusing to disperse from police?
- No. He was acquitted of the charge under Penal Law § 240.20(6) that alleged refusing a lawful order to disperse.
- Does the decision mean the prosecutor’s improper comment was allowed?
- The court found the comment improper but concluded it did not require a mistrial because the judge promptly gave curative instructions and the error did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
- Can Oden still challenge this decision?
- He may seek further review if authorized, but the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction; options depend on availability of leave to appeal to a higher court.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Oden - 2026 NY Slip Op 02677 People v Oden 2026 NY Slip Op 02677 April 29, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Jaquan Oden, appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 29, 2026 2023-06269, (Ind. No. 70374/20) Angela G. Iannacci, J.P. Deborah A. Dowling Lourdes M. Ventura Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ. Steven A. Feldman, Manhasset, NY, for appellant. Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and Monica M.C. Leiter of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Howard E. Sturim, J.), rendered May 30, 2023, convicting him of disorderly conduct, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant was charged by indictment with multiple counts of disorderly conduct, including for violating Penal Law § 240.20(3), predicated on the alleged conduct of using abusive or obscene language or making an obscene gesture in a public place, and Penal Law § 240.20(6), predicated on the alleged conduct of congregating with other persons in a public place and refusing to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse. The defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct in violation of Penal Law § 240.20(3) and acquitted on the charge of disorderly conduct in violation of Penal Law § 240.20(6). On appeal, the defendant argues that his conviction was based on legally insufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence because the People failed to prove the existence of a lawful order to disburse. Since the defendant was acquitted on the charge of disorderly conduct in violation of Penal Law § 240.20(6), and the existence of a lawful order to disburse is not an element of the charge of which he was convicted, the defendant's contentions on appeal regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence do not present a basis for disturbing his conviction. The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit, as the record reveals that defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712), and the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution ( see Strickland v Washington , 466 US 668). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial on the ground that the prosecutor made an improper comment during summation. "The decision to declare a mistrial rests with the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to determine if this drastic remedy is necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial" ( People v Rodriguez , 202 AD3d 999, 999 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Redmon , 81 AD3d 752). Here, while the challenged comment was improper, the error was not so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( see People v Rodriguez , 202 AD3d 999; People v Ellis , 166 AD3d 993, 996, affd 34 NY3d 1092), particularly in light of the court's immediate curative instructions to the jury, which the jury is presumed to have followed ( see People v Stewart , 244 AD3d 762, 766). IANNACCI, J.P., DOWLING, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph