MATTER OF WILEY v. Couzens

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF WILEY v. Couzens

343 N.E.2d 757, 38 N.Y.2d 731, 381 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2319

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 20, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 343 N.E.2d 757 (MATTER OF WILEY v. Couzens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MATTER OF WILEY v. Couzens, 343 N.E.2d 757, 38 N.Y.2d 731, 381 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2319 (N.Y. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. On the facts of this case we cannot say that the Trial Judge abused his discretion by accepting the partial verdict and discharging the jury when he did. (GPL 310.60, subd 1, par [a]; see, also, United States v Perez, 9 Wheat [22 US] 579, 580; Illinois v Somerville, 410 US 458.) The jury reported the deadlock on the attempted murder count after deliberating for over five hours and, in response to the court’s inquiry, the foreman stated that the situation would remain unchanged if deliberations were continued for another day. When the court indicated its intention to accept a partial verdict and discharge the jury, neither side objected. The decision then was left to the court’s discretion, and the court did not abuse it. Thus the double jeopardy clause poses no bar to retrial on the unresolved charge (United States v Perez, supra).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Judgment affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum. On the facts of this case we cannot say that the Trial Judge abused his discretion by accepting the partial verdict and discharging the jury when he did. (GPL 310.60, subd 1, par [a]; see, also, United States v Perez, 9 Wheat [22 US] 579, 580; Illinois v Somerville, 410 US 458.) The jury reported the deadlock on the attempted murder count after deliberating for over five hours and, in response to the court’s inquiry, the foreman stated that the situation would remain unchanged if deliberations were continued for another day. When the court indicated its intention to accept a partial verdict and discharge the jury, neither side objected. The decision then was left to the court’s discretion, and the court did not abuse it. Thus the double jeopardy clause poses no bar to retrial on the unresolved charge (United States v Perez, supra).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Judgment affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 N.E.2d 757, 38 N.Y.2d 731, 381 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-wiley-v-couzens-ny-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack