People v. Artist

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Artist

745 N.E.2d 384, 95 N.Y.2d 944, 722 N.Y.S.2d 465, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 3800

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 745 N.E.2d 384 (People v. Artist) 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. Artist, 745 N.E.2d 384, 95 N.Y.2d 944, 722 N.Y.S.2d 465, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 3800 (N.Y. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

[945]*945The record demonstrates that defendant’s argument, that he was denied his right to a jury trial and due process as a result of the substitution of the Trial Judge during jury deliberations, is unpreserved (see, People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 839-840; People v Thompson, 90 NY2d 615, 621). Defendant’s argument that the substitute Judge failed to exercise her discretion in ruling that the jury could not be released from sequestration is similarly unpreserved (see, People v Shaw, 90 NY2d 879, 880).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

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.

[945]*945The record demonstrates that defendant’s argument, that he was denied his right to a jury trial and due process as a result of the substitution of the Trial Judge during jury deliberations, is unpreserved (see, People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 839-840; People v Thompson, 90 NY2d 615, 621). Defendant’s argument that the substitute Judge failed to exercise her discretion in ruling that the jury could not be released from sequestration is similarly unpreserved (see, People v Shaw, 90 NY2d 879, 880).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 N.E.2d 384, 95 N.Y.2d 944, 722 N.Y.S.2d 465, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 3800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-artist-ny-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack