Bell v. Sherman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bell v. Sherman

174 A.D.2d 738, 571 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9342

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 24, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 738 (Bell v. Sherman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Sherman, 174 A.D.2d 738, 571 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR arti[739]*739ele 78 to prohibit the respondents from proceeding further against the petitioner on Queens County Indictment Number QN12163/88.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

A juror who has not heard all of the evidence in a case is grossly unqualified to render a verdict and must, therefore, be discharged (see, People v Russell, 112 AD2d 451, 452). Where, as here, the discharge of the juror makes it impossible to continue with the trial, principles of double jeopardy will not act to bar a retrial (CPL 270.35, 280.10). Further, we note that a defendant cannot consent to a trial by fewer than 12 jurors (see, Matter of Stressler v Hynes, 169 AD2d 750; NY Const, art I, § 2; art VI, § 18; Cancemi v People, 18 NY 128; People v Lester, 149 AD2d 975). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR arti[739]*739ele 78 to prohibit the respondents from proceeding further against the petitioner on Queens County Indictment Number QN12163/88.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

A juror who has not heard all of the evidence in a case is grossly unqualified to render a verdict and must, therefore, be discharged (see, People v Russell, 112 AD2d 451, 452). Where, as here, the discharge of the juror makes it impossible to continue with the trial, principles of double jeopardy will not act to bar a retrial (CPL 270.35, 280.10). Further, we note that a defendant cannot consent to a trial by fewer than 12 jurors (see, Matter of Stressler v Hynes, 169 AD2d 750; NY Const, art I, § 2; art VI, § 18; Cancemi v People, 18 NY 128; People v Lester, 149 AD2d 975). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 738, 571 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-sherman-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack