People v. Chin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chin

255 A.D.2d 393, 679 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11756

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 9, 1998·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marras, J.), rendered June 13, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the defendant’s introduction of a witness’s alleged prior inconsistent statement (see, People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 80-81, cert denied 442 US 910).

The court did not err in failing to conduct an inquiry of a juror who, after shaking her head sideways, answered affirmatively that the verdict was hers (see, People v Maddox, 139 AD2d 597, 598; see also, People v Hayes, 222 AD2d 292).

[394] The sentence imposed was not harsh or excessive (see, People v Storelli, 216 AD2d 891; People v Restrepo, 165 AD2d 838; see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, McGinity 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 (Marras, J.), rendered June 13, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the defendant’s introduction of a witness’s alleged prior inconsistent statement (see, People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 80-81, cert denied 442 US 910).

The court did not err in failing to conduct an inquiry of a juror who, after shaking her head sideways, answered affirmatively that the verdict was hers (see, People v Maddox, 139 AD2d 597, 598; see also, People v Hayes, 222 AD2d 292).

[394] The sentence imposed was not harsh or excessive (see, People v Storelli, 216 AD2d 891; People v Restrepo, 165 AD2d 838; see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

People v. Chin, 255 A.D.2d 393, 679 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

255 A.D.2d 393 (People v. Chin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related