People v. Albert

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Albert

647 N.E.2d 1356, 85 N.Y.2d 851, 623 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 245

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by44 cases

This text of 647 N.E.2d 1356 (People v. Albert) 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

People v. Albert, 647 N.E.2d 1356, 85 N.Y.2d 851, 623 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 245 (N.Y. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The issues defendant seeks to raise on this appeal were either unpreserved or waived at trial. Defense counsel failed to object to the manner in which the trial court investigated suggestions of juror misconduct and outside influence. Counsel also acquiesced in the scope and content of the court’s inquiry. Counsel made a timely motion for a mistrial when it was disclosed that information pertaining to the case was overheard by a juror outside the jury room and was then repeated to other jurors. However, counsel subsequently withdrew the request for relief, and the court took remedial measures on the assumption that counsel no longer desired a mistrial. Counsel’s subsequent effort to renew the mistrial motion, which was motivated by a simple change of heart rather than by any concern about the adequacy of the court’s remedial instructions, thus came too late, since it was made after the problem to which it was addressed had been cured in a *853 manner that counsel himself had evidently found satisfactory. Finally, because none of the arguments raised on defendant’s CPL 330.30 (1) motion were raised prior to verdict, those arguments did not furnish a proper predicate for setting aside the verdict.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The issues defendant seeks to raise on this appeal were either unpreserved or waived at trial. Defense counsel failed to object to the manner in which the trial court investigated suggestions of juror misconduct and outside influence. Counsel also acquiesced in the scope and content of the court’s inquiry. Counsel made a timely motion for a mistrial when it was disclosed that information pertaining to the case was overheard by a juror outside the jury room and was then repeated to other jurors. However, counsel subsequently withdrew the request for relief, and the court took remedial measures on the assumption that counsel no longer desired a mistrial. Counsel’s subsequent effort to renew the mistrial motion, which was motivated by a simple change of heart rather than by any concern about the adequacy of the court’s remedial instructions, thus came too late, since it was made after the problem to which it was addressed had been cured in a *853 manner that counsel himself had evidently found satisfactory. Finally, because none of the arguments raised on defendant’s CPL 330.30 (1) motion were raised prior to verdict, those arguments did not furnish a proper predicate for setting aside the verdict.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

647 N.E.2d 1356, 85 N.Y.2d 851, 623 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-albert-ny-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack