People v. Hinds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hinds

306 A.D.2d 180, 760 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7295

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

DecidedJune 24, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 180 (People v. Hinds) 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. Hinds, 306 A.D.2d 180, 760 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered July 13, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

As the People concede, defendant is entitled to a new trial on the ground that there is no evidence that he consented in writing to the substitution of an alternate juror during deliberations (see CPL 270.35 [1]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered July 13, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

As the People concede, defendant is entitled to a new trial on the ground that there is no evidence that he consented in writing to the substitution of an alternate juror during deliberations (see CPL 270.35 [1]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 180, 760 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hinds-nyappdiv-2003.