People v. Bean

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bean

215 A.D.2d 769, 627 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5700

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

DecidedMay 30, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 769 (People v. Bean) 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

People v. Bean, 215 A.D.2d 769, 627 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered August 20, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not err by denying his application to excuse two jurors for cause pursuant to CPL 270.20 (1) (b). Taken as a whole, the jurors’ responses to questions from counsel and the court did not demonstrate a substantial risk that the jurors could not [770]*770discharge their responsibilities as jurors (see, People v Williams, 63 NY2d 882). Thus, it was not error for the court, having had the opportunity to make a fair evaluation of the jurors’ responses, to deny the challenges in question (see, People v Williams, supra).

The defendant’s sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions regarding the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818; People v Jalah, 107 AD2d 762) and, in any event, without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered August 20, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not err by denying his application to excuse two jurors for cause pursuant to CPL 270.20 (1) (b). Taken as a whole, the jurors’ responses to questions from counsel and the court did not demonstrate a substantial risk that the jurors could not [770]*770discharge their responsibilities as jurors (see, People v Williams, 63 NY2d 882). Thus, it was not error for the court, having had the opportunity to make a fair evaluation of the jurors’ responses, to deny the challenges in question (see, People v Williams, supra).

The defendant’s sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions regarding the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818; People v Jalah, 107 AD2d 762) and, in any event, without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 769, 627 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bean-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack