People v. Chae Kim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chae Kim

206 A.D.2d 540, 615 N.Y.S.2d 288

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

DecidedJuly 25, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 206 A.D.2d 540 (People v. Chae Kim) 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. Chae Kim, 206 A.D.2d 540, 615 N.Y.S.2d 288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered May 13, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record reveals that the trial court did not relinquish control over the jury deliberations, thereby depriving the defendant of his right to a proper trial by jury (cf., People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307, rearg denied 67 NY2d 647). The trial court’s statements, which merely informed the jurors in an impartial and neutral manner that they would be sequestered for the evening, did not constitute, under the circumstances present, an attempt to coerce or compel the jury to reach a prompt verdict (see, People v Pagan, 45 NY2d 725; People v Sharff, 38 NY2d 751).

We find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Krausman and Florio, 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, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered May 13, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record reveals that the trial court did not relinquish control over the jury deliberations, thereby depriving the defendant of his right to a proper trial by jury (cf., People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307, rearg denied 67 NY2d 647). The trial court’s statements, which merely informed the jurors in an impartial and neutral manner that they would be sequestered for the evening, did not constitute, under the circumstances present, an attempt to coerce or compel the jury to reach a prompt verdict (see, People v Pagan, 45 NY2d 725; People v Sharff, 38 NY2d 751).

We find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 540, 615 N.Y.S.2d 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chae-kim-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack