People v. Litwa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Litwa

256 A.D.2d 256, 683 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13935

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 256 (People v. Litwa) 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. Litwa, 256 A.D.2d 256, 683 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred Eggert, J.), rendered September 6, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of arson in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remanded to Supreme Court, Bronx County for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

In a prior order of this Court (see, People v Litwa, 230 AD2d 638), we held the appeal in abeyance and remitted for a reconstruction hearing to ascertain whether a note received by [257]*257the court from the forelady was upon the sole request of the deliberating jurors or whether it was sent at the request of the alternates as well. After remittitur, the hearing court concluded that any conversations between the alternate and deliberating jurors were of a “casual, non-specific nature.” The court concluded that there was no evidence that the alternate jurors discussed the case, their deliberations or the subject matter of the notes with the deliberating jurors. Nor was there evidence that the alternate jurors assisted the foreperson in drafting the note from the jury box. Accordingly, as the hearing court noted, “substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity herein did not exist (People v Moore, 227 AD2d 227).” We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred Eggert, J.), rendered September 6, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of arson in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remanded to Supreme Court, Bronx County for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

In a prior order of this Court (see, People v Litwa, 230 AD2d 638), we held the appeal in abeyance and remitted for a reconstruction hearing to ascertain whether a note received by [257]*257the court from the forelady was upon the sole request of the deliberating jurors or whether it was sent at the request of the alternates as well. After remittitur, the hearing court concluded that any conversations between the alternate and deliberating jurors were of a “casual, non-specific nature.” The court concluded that there was no evidence that the alternate jurors discussed the case, their deliberations or the subject matter of the notes with the deliberating jurors. Nor was there evidence that the alternate jurors assisted the foreperson in drafting the note from the jury box. Accordingly, as the hearing court noted, “substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity herein did not exist (People v Moore, 227 AD2d 227).” We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 256, 683 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-litwa-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack