People v. Cruz

225 A.D.2d 325, 638 N.Y.2d 639, 638 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2082
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 7, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

When the court observed that a juror may have "doze[d] off a couple a times”, defense counsel stated that he "didn’t see it”, and requested no remedy. Therefore, his present claim that the court should have conducted an inquiry is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, on this record, there is an insufficient basis to conclude that the court should have conducted an inquiry (People v Ferguson, 165 AD2d 789, lv denied 77 NY2d 838).

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

People v. Cruz, 225 A.D.2d 325, 638 N.Y.2d 639, 638 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

225 A.D.2d 325 (People v. Cruz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Jorge
23 A.D.3d 254 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)