People v. Hardy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hardy

309 A.D.2d 520, 765 N.Y.S.2d 497, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10348

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 520 (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, 309 A.D.2d 520, 765 N.Y.S.2d 497, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Su[521]*521preme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.), rendered May 2, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s challenge for cause, since the totality of the prospective juror’s responses established his impartiality and his ability to follow the court’s instructions on such subjects as interested witnesses and a defendant’s right to abstain from testifying (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

Judgment, Su[521]*521preme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.), rendered May 2, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s challenge for cause, since the totality of the prospective juror’s responses established his impartiality and his ability to follow the court’s instructions on such subjects as interested witnesses and a defendant’s right to abstain from testifying (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 520, 765 N.Y.S.2d 497, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hardy-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack