People v. Holston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holston

194 A.D.2d 689, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6108

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

DecidedJune 14, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 689 (People v. Holston) 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. Holston, 194 A.D.2d 689, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), rendered May 20, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

We agree with the defendant’s contention that the trial court improvidently discharged a sworn juror without first conducting "a reasonably thorough inquiry and recitation on the record of the facts and reasons for invoking the statutory authorization of discharging and replacing [the] juror based on continued unavailability” (People v Page, 72 NY2d 69, 73; see, CPL 270.35; see, People v Davis, 178 AD2d 424, 425). Therefore, the defendant’s judgment of conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered (People v Taylor, 154 AD2d 634, 635; [690]*690affd 76 NY2d 873). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), rendered May 20, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

We agree with the defendant’s contention that the trial court improvidently discharged a sworn juror without first conducting "a reasonably thorough inquiry and recitation on the record of the facts and reasons for invoking the statutory authorization of discharging and replacing [the] juror based on continued unavailability” (People v Page, 72 NY2d 69, 73; see, CPL 270.35; see, People v Davis, 178 AD2d 424, 425). Therefore, the defendant’s judgment of conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered (People v Taylor, 154 AD2d 634, 635; [690]*690affd 76 NY2d 873). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 689, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holston-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack