People v. Campbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Campbell

259 A.D.2d 447, 687 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3257

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 447 (People v. Campbell) 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. Campbell, 259 A.D.2d 447, 687 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.), rendered August 1, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to 3 years probation and a $500 fine, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant, in objecting to the court’s jury selection procedure, merely asserted that such procedure was undesirable, and not that it was prohibited by law, he failed to preserve his present claims and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that when the court swore 52 prospective jurors, seated in the jury box and elsewhere in the courtroom, for simultaneous voir dire examination by counsel, it did not violate CPL 270.15 or defendant’s constitutional right to select a jury. “[C]onstruing the statute according to the plain and ordinary meaning of its words, the procedure employed properly complied with the requirement that the court seat not less than 12 prospective jurors for examination at the same time.” (People v Camacho, 230 AD2d 604, affd 90 NY2d 558.) The parties were assisted by a detailed questionnaire which the jurors completed, and the record does not support defendant’s speculative claim that the number of prospective jurors to be examined in a single round was too large to permit effective voir dire. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.), rendered August 1, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to 3 years probation and a $500 fine, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant, in objecting to the court’s jury selection procedure, merely asserted that such procedure was undesirable, and not that it was prohibited by law, he failed to preserve his present claims and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that when the court swore 52 prospective jurors, seated in the jury box and elsewhere in the courtroom, for simultaneous voir dire examination by counsel, it did not violate CPL 270.15 or defendant’s constitutional right to select a jury. “[C]onstruing the statute according to the plain and ordinary meaning of its words, the procedure employed properly complied with the requirement that the court seat not less than 12 prospective jurors for examination at the same time.” (People v Camacho, 230 AD2d 604, affd 90 NY2d 558.) The parties were assisted by a detailed questionnaire which the jurors completed, and the record does not support defendant’s speculative claim that the number of prospective jurors to be examined in a single round was too large to permit effective voir dire. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 447, 687 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-campbell-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack