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

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 352 (People v. Dicks) 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. 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

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]*353all 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]*353all 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 352, 590 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dicks-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack