People v. Broderick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Broderick

255 A.D.2d 389, 679 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11754

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 9, 1998·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered November 22, 1994, convicting him of [390] robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

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

The court committed reversible error when, after the defense counsel made his peremptory challenges, it permitted the prosecutor to belatedly exercise a peremptory challenge to a still unsworn, prospective juror (see, CPL 270.15 [2]; People v McQuade, 110 NY 284; People v Lebron, 236 AD2d 423; People v De Conto, 172 AD2d 684, affd 80 NY2d 943; see also, People v Alston, 88 NY2d 519).

Further, we note that the court erred in refusing to charge that a reasonable doubt could arise from a lack of evidence as well as from the evidence presented (see, People v Roldos, 161 AD2d 610). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Luciano, 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 (Firetog, J.), rendered November 22, 1994, convicting him of [390] robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

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

The court committed reversible error when, after the defense counsel made his peremptory challenges, it permitted the prosecutor to belatedly exercise a peremptory challenge to a still unsworn, prospective juror (see, CPL 270.15 [2]; People v McQuade, 110 NY 284; People v Lebron, 236 AD2d 423; People v De Conto, 172 AD2d 684, affd 80 NY2d 943; see also, People v Alston, 88 NY2d 519).

Further, we note that the court erred in refusing to charge that a reasonable doubt could arise from a lack of evidence as well as from the evidence presented (see, People v Roldos, 161 AD2d 610). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

People v. Broderick, 255 A.D.2d 389, 679 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

255 A.D.2d 389 (People v. Broderick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related