People v. Hardy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hardy

109 A.D.2d 802, 486 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47300

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 109 A.D.2d 802 (People v. Hardy) 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. Hardy, 109 A.D.2d 802, 486 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Balbach, J.), rendered June 30, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant argues that the trial court coerced the jury into reaching a verdict. After approximately seven hours of deliberation, without a verdict, the jury foreman reported that he believed the jury would remain unable to reach a decision. The trial court then gave the jury a so-called “Allen” charge, urging the importance of the jury reaching a verdict. Such a charge is proper provided it does not urge that (1) a dissenting juror abandon his own conviction and join in the opinion of other jurors, (2) attempt to coerce or compel the jury to agree upon a particular verdict (People v Faber, 199 NY 256), or (3) shame the jury into reaching a verdict (People v Josey, 19 AD2d 660; see, People v Randall, 9 NY2d 413; People v Sharff, 45 AD2d 666, affd 38 NY2d 751; 1 Charges to Jury Crim Case § 2.38 [rev ed]; 1 CJI 42.60, at 1019). The charge at bar was free of these errors. Moreover, “[i]t is well established that the determination of how long a disagreeing jury will be kept together and required to continue their deliberation is a matter of sound judicial discretion which, in the absence of abuse, will not be disturbed” (People v Presley, 22 AD2d 151, 154, affd 16 NY2d 738).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Balbach, J.), rendered June 30, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant argues that the trial court coerced the jury into reaching a verdict. After approximately seven hours of deliberation, without a verdict, the jury foreman reported that he believed the jury would remain unable to reach a decision. The trial court then gave the jury a so-called “Allen” charge, urging the importance of the jury reaching a verdict. Such a charge is proper provided it does not urge that (1) a dissenting juror abandon his own conviction and join in the opinion of other jurors, (2) attempt to coerce or compel the jury to agree upon a particular verdict (People v Faber, 199 NY 256), or (3) shame the jury into reaching a verdict (People v Josey, 19 AD2d 660; see, People v Randall, 9 NY2d 413; People v Sharff, 45 AD2d 666, affd 38 NY2d 751; 1 Charges to Jury Crim Case § 2.38 [rev ed]; 1 CJI 42.60, at 1019). The charge at bar was free of these errors. Moreover, “[i]t is well established that the determination of how long a disagreeing jury will be kept together and required to continue their deliberation is a matter of sound judicial discretion which, in the absence of abuse, will not be disturbed” (People v Presley, 22 AD2d 151, 154, affd 16 NY2d 738).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 802, 486 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hardy-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack