People v. Males

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Males

227 A.D.2d 645, 643 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6121

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

DecidedMay 28, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 645 (People v. Males) 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. Males, 227 A.D.2d 645, 643 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered July 11, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by discharging a juror who was sick and replacing him with the first alternate juror. The court questioned the juror concerning the nature of his illness and ascertained that the juror had suffered an epileptic seizure and required medical attention. In light of this and other circumstances, including the possible lack of availability of a key witness, the discharge of the juror was proper (see, People v Page, 72 NY2d 69, 73; People v Miranda, 223 AD2d 728).

Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Florio, 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 (Feldman, J.), rendered July 11, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by discharging a juror who was sick and replacing him with the first alternate juror. The court questioned the juror concerning the nature of his illness and ascertained that the juror had suffered an epileptic seizure and required medical attention. In light of this and other circumstances, including the possible lack of availability of a key witness, the discharge of the juror was proper (see, People v Page, 72 NY2d 69, 73; People v Miranda, 223 AD2d 728).

Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 645, 643 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-males-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack