Home/New York Court of Appeals/People v. Crandall

People v. Crandall

382 N.E.2d 766, 45 N.Y.2d 851, 410 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2275
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 19, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 382 N.E.2d 766 (People v. Crandall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Crandall, 382 N.E.2d 766, 45 N.Y.2d 851, 410 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2275 (N.Y. 1978).

Opinion

[852]*852OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

While the risk of a coerced verdict is to be carefully avoided, we cannot conclude that the Appellate Division erred when it affirmed the jury’s verdict of guilt in this case. It is true that under the Trial Judge’s instructions this jury was held until the verdict was rendered at 3:27 a.m. — following an afternoon and evening of deliberation after a two-day, second trial. There is nothing in the record, however, to demonstrate fatigue or other distress on the part of the jurors at the time of their note at 2:14 a.m. that they could not reach a unanimous verdict, nor did they ask to be discharged. Defendant’s contention that the bare recital of the law by the Trial Judge at that time should have been accompanied by supplemental instructions is unavailing because he requested none. Nor did defense counsel at any time request that deliberations be recessed to the following morning. Finally, when midway through the final hour of their deliberations the Judge sent for the jury they requested "some additional time”. Twenty-five minutes later they returned their verdict. We agree with the Appellate Division that there is nothing in this record to suggest that the lateness of the hour or the action of the court coerced the verdict.

We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

People v. Carroll
300 A.D.2d 911 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Glasco
225 A.D.2d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Jason FF.
224 A.D.2d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Nichole L.
213 A.D.2d 750 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Holder
203 A.D.2d 382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Coleman
170 A.D.2d 756 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Meekins
154 A.D.2d 404 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Cain
151 A.D.2d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Maddox
139 A.D.2d 597 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Carter
126 A.D.2d 963 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Teicher
73 A.D.2d 136 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
State v. Garrett
595 S.W.2d 422 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
382 N.E.2d 766, 45 N.Y.2d 851, 410 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crandall-ny-1978.