People v. McGriff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McGriff

73 A.D.3d 810, 899 N.Y.S.2d 658

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

DecidedMay 4, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 810 (People v. McGriff) 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. McGriff, 73 A.D.3d 810, 899 N.Y.S.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Knopf, J.), rendered October 31, 2007, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly denied his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. The record does not support a finding that the prospective juror had an actual bias or otherwise possessed a “state of mind that [was] likely to preclude [her] from rendering an impartial [811]*811verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; see People v Hernandez, 222 AD2d 696, 696-697 [1995]; People v Archer, 210 AD2d 241, 241-242 [1994]). Covello, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 17 Misc 3d 1122(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 52105(U).]

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, Queens County (Knopf, J.), rendered October 31, 2007, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly denied his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. The record does not support a finding that the prospective juror had an actual bias or otherwise possessed a “state of mind that [was] likely to preclude [her] from rendering an impartial [811]*811verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; see People v Hernandez, 222 AD2d 696, 696-697 [1995]; People v Archer, 210 AD2d 241, 241-242 [1994]). Covello, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 17 Misc 3d 1122(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 52105(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 810, 899 N.Y.S.2d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcgriff-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack