People v. Mendoza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mendoza

191 A.D.2d 648, 595 N.Y.S.2d 113

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 648 (People v. Mendoza) 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. Mendoza, 191 A.D.2d 648, 595 N.Y.S.2d 113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered September 14, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that the trial court has broad discretion in restricting the scope of voir dire by counsel (see, People v Jean, 75 NY2d 744; People v Boulware, 29 NY2d 135, 140, cert denied 405 US 995). Contrary to the contention of the defendant, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to ask a juror a series of [649]*649questions designed to determine whether he could "sift through” the evidence and assess whether a person was being truthful. Indeed, we conclude that the jury selection process was fair. The defendant has wholly failed to demonstrate that the jurors chosen were anything but impartial (see, People v Pepper, 59 NY2d 353, 359).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245) or devoid of merit (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86; CPL 470.15 [5]). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Pizzuto, 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, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered September 14, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that the trial court has broad discretion in restricting the scope of voir dire by counsel (see, People v Jean, 75 NY2d 744; People v Boulware, 29 NY2d 135, 140, cert denied 405 US 995). Contrary to the contention of the defendant, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to ask a juror a series of [649]*649questions designed to determine whether he could "sift through” the evidence and assess whether a person was being truthful. Indeed, we conclude that the jury selection process was fair. The defendant has wholly failed to demonstrate that the jurors chosen were anything but impartial (see, People v Pepper, 59 NY2d 353, 359).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245) or devoid of merit (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86; CPL 470.15 [5]). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 648, 595 N.Y.S.2d 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mendoza-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack