People v. Dinkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dinkins

278 A.D.2d 43, 717 N.Y.S.2d 167, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12689

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 43 (People v. Dinkins) 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. Dinkins, 278 A.D.2d 43, 717 N.Y.S.2d 167, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered June 23, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting questioning of prospective jurors (see, People v Boulware, 29 NY2d 135, cert denied 405 US 995). Since the court itself adequately covered the jurors’ obligation to draw no inference from the absence of testimony by a defendant, the court properly limited further inquiry on the same subject (compare, People v Wongshing, 245 AD2d 186, lv denied 91 NY2d 978, with People v Porter, 226 AD2d 275). The court did not abuse its discretion in curtailing questioning about the details of jurors’ occupational duties. Defendant’s unpreserved complaint about the court’s limitation of the prosecutor’s voir dire is unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered June 23, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting questioning of prospective jurors (see, People v Boulware, 29 NY2d 135, cert denied 405 US 995). Since the court itself adequately covered the jurors’ obligation to draw no inference from the absence of testimony by a defendant, the court properly limited further inquiry on the same subject (compare, People v Wongshing, 245 AD2d 186, lv denied 91 NY2d 978, with People v Porter, 226 AD2d 275). The court did not abuse its discretion in curtailing questioning about the details of jurors’ occupational duties. Defendant’s unpreserved complaint about the court’s limitation of the prosecutor’s voir dire is unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 43, 717 N.Y.S.2d 167, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dinkins-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack