People v. Jack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jack

199 A.D.2d 980, 606 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12567

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 980 (People v. Jack) 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. Jack, 199 A.D.2d 980, 606 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of depraved indifference murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]). We disagree. The assessment of the objective circumstances evincing a defendant’s depraved indifference to human life is a qualitative judgment to be made by the trier of fact (People v Roe, 74 NY2d 20). Under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the jury to conclude that defendant’s firing a pistol at the victim from approximately 100 feet presented a grave risk of death.

Defendant also contends that he was entitled to be present at a sidebar conference during trial concerning juror disqualification. A sidebar conference with a juror is not a material stage of the trial at which defendant has a right to be present (see, People v Aguilera, 82 NY2d 23; People v Torres, 80 NY2d 944, rearg denied 81 NY2d 784; People v Stokes, 198 AD2d 847). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Bristol, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of depraved indifference murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]). We disagree. The assessment of the objective circumstances evincing a defendant’s depraved indifference to human life is a qualitative judgment to be made by the trier of fact (People v Roe, 74 NY2d 20). Under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the jury to conclude that defendant’s firing a pistol at the victim from approximately 100 feet presented a grave risk of death.

Defendant also contends that he was entitled to be present at a sidebar conference during trial concerning juror disqualification. A sidebar conference with a juror is not a material stage of the trial at which defendant has a right to be present (see, People v Aguilera, 82 NY2d 23; People v Torres, 80 NY2d 944, rearg denied 81 NY2d 784; People v Stokes, 198 AD2d 847). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Bristol, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 980, 606 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jack-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack