People v. Bradshaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bradshaw

292 A.D.2d 315, 739 N.Y.S.2d 264, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3282

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 315 (People v. Bradshaw) 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. Bradshaw, 292 A.D.2d 315, 739 N.Y.S.2d 264, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Sonberg, J.), rendered January 27, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the third, degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s challenge for cause. The record, viewed as a whole, supports the court’s determination that the prospective juror’s promise to be impartial was credible (see, People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 363). While some of the panelist’s initial responses were equivocal, the court thoroughly questioned her and elicited the requisite unequivocal assurance of impartiality (see, People v Ortega, 245 AD2d 213, lv denied 91 NY2d 1011). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Wallach, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Sonberg, J.), rendered January 27, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the third, degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s challenge for cause. The record, viewed as a whole, supports the court’s determination that the prospective juror’s promise to be impartial was credible (see, People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 363). While some of the panelist’s initial responses were equivocal, the court thoroughly questioned her and elicited the requisite unequivocal assurance of impartiality (see, People v Ortega, 245 AD2d 213, lv denied 91 NY2d 1011). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Wallach, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 315, 739 N.Y.S.2d 264, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bradshaw-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack