People v. Earl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Earl

255 A.D.2d 394, 679 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11782

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 394 (People v. Earl) 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. Earl, 255 A.D.2d 394, 679 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered May 12, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The voir dire minutes do not support the defendant’s assertion that two venirepersons indicated actual bias, or that they would otherwise be unable to render an impartial verdict (see, CPL 270.20 [1] [b]). Thus, the court did not err in denying the defendant’s challenge of each for cause (see, People v Torpey, 63 NY2d 361; People v Archer, 210 AD2d 241).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered May 12, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The voir dire minutes do not support the defendant’s assertion that two venirepersons indicated actual bias, or that they would otherwise be unable to render an impartial verdict (see, CPL 270.20 [1] [b]). Thus, the court did not err in denying the defendant’s challenge of each for cause (see, People v Torpey, 63 NY2d 361; People v Archer, 210 AD2d 241).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 394, 679 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-earl-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack