People v. Hemphill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hemphill

2017 NY Slip Op 1125, 147 A.D.3d 476, 48 N.Y.S.3d 21

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2017

Docket5990/08 3058 3057

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1125 (People v. Hemphill) 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. Hemphill, 2017 NY Slip Op 1125, 147 A.D.3d 476, 48 N.Y.S.3d 21 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Wayne M. Ozzi, J., at jury trial and sentencing; Neil Ross, J., at resentenc-ing), rendered July 12, 2010, as amended July 9, 2015, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to concurrent terms of 7V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility.

Review of defendant’s claim that the court improp granted a challenge for cause by the People is statute foreclosed because the People did not exhaust their peremptory challenges (see CPL 270.20 [2]). Although the People init: used up their challenges, they subsequently withdrew or e of them, and thus the court’s ruling, even if erroneous, did not give the People an extra challenge. In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in disqualifying a panelist 3rly rily ally *477 who failed to give an unequivocal assurance that she could render an impartial verdict, uninfluenced by knowledge or expertise derived from her studies (see generally People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 363 [2001]; see also People v Culhane, 33 NY2d 90, 108 n 3 [1973]).

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a provident exercise of discretion (see People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). With reasonable limitations, the court permitted inquiry into matters that were probative of credibility.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Wayne M. Ozzi, J., at jury trial and sentencing; Neil Ross, J., at resentenc-ing), rendered July 12, 2010, as amended July 9, 2015, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to concurrent terms of 7V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility.

Review of defendant’s claim that the court improp granted a challenge for cause by the People is statute foreclosed because the People did not exhaust their peremptory challenges (see CPL 270.20 [2]). Although the People init: used up their challenges, they subsequently withdrew or e of them, and thus the court’s ruling, even if erroneous, did not give the People an extra challenge. In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in disqualifying a panelist 3rly rily ally *477 who failed to give an unequivocal assurance that she could render an impartial verdict, uninfluenced by knowledge or expertise derived from her studies (see generally People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 363 [2001]; see also People v Culhane, 33 NY2d 90, 108 n 3 [1973]).

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a provident exercise of discretion (see People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). With reasonable limitations, the court permitted inquiry into matters that were probative of credibility.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1125, 147 A.D.3d 476, 48 N.Y.S.3d 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hemphill-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack