People v. Louis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Louis

304 A.D.2d 840, 757 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4559

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

DecidedApril 28, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 840 (People v. Louis) 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. Louis, 304 A.D.2d 840, 757 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered February 13, 2001, convicting bim of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court improperly denied his challenge for cause of a prospective juror, who was self-employed, because the juror expressed job-related concerns regarding his time and finances. Upon being questioned, the juror stated unequivocally on the record that he would be fair and impartial (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]). Accordingly, we find no basis for reversal.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Feuerstein and Crane, 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, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered February 13, 2001, convicting bim of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court improperly denied his challenge for cause of a prospective juror, who was self-employed, because the juror expressed job-related concerns regarding his time and finances. Upon being questioned, the juror stated unequivocally on the record that he would be fair and impartial (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]). Accordingly, we find no basis for reversal.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 840, 757 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-louis-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack