People v. Boozer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Boozer

298 A.D.2d 261, 748 N.Y.S.2d 379, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10051

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 261 (People v. Boozer) 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. Boozer, 298 A.D.2d 261, 748 N.Y.S.2d 379, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Donnino, J.), rendered February 1, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 7, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in qualifying an assistant medical examiner as an expert on blood spatter. Although defendant contends that blood spatter is an area about which forensic pathologists are not “ordinarily called upon to make judgments” (Romano v Stanley, 90 NY2d 444, 452), and was therefore outside the witness’s expertise, there was no such indication in her testimony. Indeed, her qualification as an expert in blood spatter analysis was fully supported by her testimony regarding her classroom and on-the-job training as well as her experience in that subject.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s sua sponte, pre-voir dire excusal of those prospective jurors who were uncertain of their ability to be fair requires preservation and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s procedure was an effective screening device and a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Gayle, 238 AD2d 133, lv denied 90 NY2d 893; see also People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469, 473). Defendant’s argument that the court improperly delegated a judicial function to the panelists themselves is without merit.

Defendant was not entitled to a hearing on his CPL 440.10 motion since his allegation that his attorney provided improper and incorrect advice, which discouraged defendant from choosing to testify before the grand jury, would not, if true, establish ineffective assistance of counsel (cf. People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872). We find defendant’s constitutional claim to be without merit. Concur — Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Donnino, J.), rendered February 1, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 7, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in qualifying an assistant medical examiner as an expert on blood spatter. Although defendant contends that blood spatter is an area about which forensic pathologists are not “ordinarily called upon to make judgments” (Romano v Stanley, 90 NY2d 444, 452), and was therefore outside the witness’s expertise, there was no such indication in her testimony. Indeed, her qualification as an expert in blood spatter analysis was fully supported by her testimony regarding her classroom and on-the-job training as well as her experience in that subject.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s sua sponte, pre-voir dire excusal of those prospective jurors who were uncertain of their ability to be fair requires preservation and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s procedure was an effective screening device and a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Gayle, 238 AD2d 133, lv denied 90 NY2d 893; see also People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469, 473). Defendant’s argument that the court improperly delegated a judicial function to the panelists themselves is without merit.

Defendant was not entitled to a hearing on his CPL 440.10 motion since his allegation that his attorney provided improper and incorrect advice, which discouraged defendant from choosing to testify before the grand jury, would not, if true, establish ineffective assistance of counsel (cf. People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872). We find defendant’s constitutional claim to be without merit. Concur — Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 261, 748 N.Y.S.2d 379, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-boozer-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack