People v. Birch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Birch

215 A.D.2d 573, 626 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5088

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

DecidedMay 15, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 573 (People v. Birch) 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. Birch, 215 A.D.2d 573, 626 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5088 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cozier, J.), rendered March 10, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The trial court erred in refusing to dismiss three prospective jurors for cause when they did not unequivocally state that they would not be influenced by their feelings and would render an impartial verdict (see, People v Blyden, 55 NY2d 73, 76; People v Culhane, 33 NY2d 90). Because defense counsel then exercised peremptory challenges against those prospective jurors, and eventually exhausted his allotment of peremptory challenges, the defendant’s conviction must be reversed (see, People v Torpey, 63 NY2d 361; see also, People v Hewitt, 189 AD2d 781).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions, including his claim that his sentence was excessive, and find them to be without merit (see, People v Coleman, 82 NY2d 415, 432). Balletta, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, 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, Kings County (Cozier, J.), rendered March 10, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The trial court erred in refusing to dismiss three prospective jurors for cause when they did not unequivocally state that they would not be influenced by their feelings and would render an impartial verdict (see, People v Blyden, 55 NY2d 73, 76; People v Culhane, 33 NY2d 90). Because defense counsel then exercised peremptory challenges against those prospective jurors, and eventually exhausted his allotment of peremptory challenges, the defendant’s conviction must be reversed (see, People v Torpey, 63 NY2d 361; see also, People v Hewitt, 189 AD2d 781).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions, including his claim that his sentence was excessive, and find them to be without merit (see, People v Coleman, 82 NY2d 415, 432). Balletta, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 573, 626 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-birch-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack