People v. Keels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Keels

166 A.D.2d 883, 560 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12105

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 A.D.2d 883 (People v. Keels) 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. Keels, 166 A.D.2d 883, 560 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues on appeal that the court erred in refusing to dismiss a juror who complained of physical illness during final deliberations. We disagree. When the juror informed the court that he was having a "continuing problem with sinus and a broken nose” and that he did not feel that he could continue, the court ascertained that the juror was willing to continue deliberations but would report back to the court if he felt too ill to continue. In response to questioning by the prosecutor, the juror indicated that he would not change his vote in an effort to speed up deliberations, but reiterated that he would report to the court if he felt too ill to continue. We find no abuse of discretion (see, People v Brewer, 136 AD2d 831, 832; see generally, People v Page, 72 NY2d 69, 73).

We have examined the remaining issues raised by defendant and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J.—criminal possession of a weapon, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues on appeal that the court erred in refusing to dismiss a juror who complained of physical illness during final deliberations. We disagree. When the juror informed the court that he was having a "continuing problem with sinus and a broken nose” and that he did not feel that he could continue, the court ascertained that the juror was willing to continue deliberations but would report back to the court if he felt too ill to continue. In response to questioning by the prosecutor, the juror indicated that he would not change his vote in an effort to speed up deliberations, but reiterated that he would report to the court if he felt too ill to continue. We find no abuse of discretion (see, People v Brewer, 136 AD2d 831, 832; see generally, People v Page, 72 NY2d 69, 73).

We have examined the remaining issues raised by defendant and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J.—criminal possession of a weapon, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 883, 560 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-keels-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack