People v. Guadalupe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Guadalupe

202 A.D.2d 334, 610 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2819

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 334 (People v. Guadalupe) 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. Guadalupe, 202 A.D.2d 334, 610 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered August 6, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that he was denied a fair trial because a court officer spoke to a juror about a personal matter is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Hodges, 173 AD2d 644, lv denied 78 NY2d 1011), and we decline to review the issue in the interest of justice. If we were to review, we would note that not every communication with a deliberating juror requires the participation of the court or the presence of the defendant (People v Bonaparte, 78 NY2d 26, 30), and that the brief exchange here involving a personal matter could not have influenced the juror’s deliberations (compare, People v Rukaj, 123 AD2d 277). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered August 6, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that he was denied a fair trial because a court officer spoke to a juror about a personal matter is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Hodges, 173 AD2d 644, lv denied 78 NY2d 1011), and we decline to review the issue in the interest of justice. If we were to review, we would note that not every communication with a deliberating juror requires the participation of the court or the presence of the defendant (People v Bonaparte, 78 NY2d 26, 30), and that the brief exchange here involving a personal matter could not have influenced the juror’s deliberations (compare, People v Rukaj, 123 AD2d 277). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 334, 610 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-guadalupe-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack