People v. Carmona

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carmona

265 A.D.2d 197, 696 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10290

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 197 (People v. Carmona) 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. Carmona, 265 A.D.2d 197, 696 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered January 30,1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court appropriately exercised its discretion in ruling that a sworn juror was unavailable for continued service (see, CPL 270.35). The court’s determination was made only after a reasonably thorough inquiry, including two telephone conversations between the court and the juror. The second telephone call was for the purpose of asking questions proposed by counsel. The court then recited on the record the answers to the questions and the reasons for such discharge (see, People v Page, 72 NY2d 69). The record supports the court’s determination that the juror’s obvious emotional distress so distracted him from his duties that it rendered him grossly disqualified [198]*198for continued service, particularly in view of his inability to state when he could return (see, People v Sparrow, 220 AD2d 321, 322, lv denied 87 NY2d 908). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered January 30,1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court appropriately exercised its discretion in ruling that a sworn juror was unavailable for continued service (see, CPL 270.35). The court’s determination was made only after a reasonably thorough inquiry, including two telephone conversations between the court and the juror. The second telephone call was for the purpose of asking questions proposed by counsel. The court then recited on the record the answers to the questions and the reasons for such discharge (see, People v Page, 72 NY2d 69). The record supports the court’s determination that the juror’s obvious emotional distress so distracted him from his duties that it rendered him grossly disqualified [198]*198for continued service, particularly in view of his inability to state when he could return (see, People v Sparrow, 220 AD2d 321, 322, lv denied 87 NY2d 908). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 197, 696 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carmona-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack