People v. Dicks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dicks

188 A.D.2d 352, 590 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13737

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 10, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J.), rendered June 4, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of second degree robbery, and sentencing him to a term of 2 Vi to 7 Vi years, unanimously affirmed.

After the jury forewoman announced a guilty verdict, defense counsel asked that the jury be polled. Juror 4 requested permission to ask the forewoman a question in private, and the court responded by rejecting the verdict and sending the jurors back for further deliberation, at the conclusion of which [353] all 12 expressed an unequivocal "guilty” vote. Defendant now argues that the court should have held a hearing to determine the nature of the fourth juror’s question, which was never expressed on the record.

We find that the objection is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Cain, 76 NY2d 119, 124, n 2). Were we to consider the argument in the interest of justice, we would find it without merit (see, People v Pickett, 61 NY2d 773). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J.), rendered June 4, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of second degree robbery, and sentencing him to a term of 2 Vi to 7 Vi years, unanimously affirmed.

After the jury forewoman announced a guilty verdict, defense counsel asked that the jury be polled. Juror 4 requested permission to ask the forewoman a question in private, and the court responded by rejecting the verdict and sending the jurors back for further deliberation, at the conclusion of which [353] all 12 expressed an unequivocal "guilty” vote. Defendant now argues that the court should have held a hearing to determine the nature of the fourth juror’s question, which was never expressed on the record.

We find that the objection is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Cain, 76 NY2d 119, 124, n 2). Were we to consider the argument in the interest of justice, we would find it without merit (see, People v Pickett, 61 NY2d 773). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

People v. Dicks, 188 A.D.2d 352, 590 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

188 A.D.2d 352 (People v. Dicks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related