People v. Herrmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Herrmann

280 A.D.2d 349, 721 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1533

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 349 (People v. Herrmann) 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. Herrmann, 280 A.D.2d 349, 721 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.), rendered June 11, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his right to be present at trial was violated is unreviewable because the record does not establish defendant’s exclusion from the proceeding at issue. In any event, defendant was not entitled to be present at the colloquy with a deliberating juror at which no substantive instructions were delivered. When, during deliberations, a juror asked to speak to the court about a “personal matter,” but in fact began discussing, without particularization, the jury’s inability to reach a verdict, the court instructed this juror that such a communication must be in writing. Significantly, both counsel were also present and no objection was raised. This routine instruction did not require defendant’s presence (People v Dixon, 192 AD2d 338, lv denied 81 NY2d 1013; see also, People v Bonaparte, 78 NY2d 26). The record fails to support defendant’s assertion that the court conveyed additional information to the juror by implication. Similarly, there was no violation of the statutory procedures for responding to jury communications (CPL 310.30). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin; Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.), rendered June 11, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his right to be present at trial was violated is unreviewable because the record does not establish defendant’s exclusion from the proceeding at issue. In any event, defendant was not entitled to be present at the colloquy with a deliberating juror at which no substantive instructions were delivered. When, during deliberations, a juror asked to speak to the court about a “personal matter,” but in fact began discussing, without particularization, the jury’s inability to reach a verdict, the court instructed this juror that such a communication must be in writing. Significantly, both counsel were also present and no objection was raised. This routine instruction did not require defendant’s presence (People v Dixon, 192 AD2d 338, lv denied 81 NY2d 1013; see also, People v Bonaparte, 78 NY2d 26). The record fails to support defendant’s assertion that the court conveyed additional information to the juror by implication. Similarly, there was no violation of the statutory procedures for responding to jury communications (CPL 310.30). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin; Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 349, 721 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-herrmann-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack