People v. Morales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Morales

158 A.D.2d 404, 551 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1852

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 404 (People v. Morales) 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. Morales, 158 A.D.2d 404, 551 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Initially, we note that, contrary to defendant’s arguments, his guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt and that there is no basis to disturb the jury’s verdict which was not against the weight of the evidence and rested on determinations of credibility. (See, People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755.) The wheelchair-bound victim had previously known the defendant and had ample opportunity to observe him during the commission of the crime, thereby supporting her identification testimony. The court properly instructed the jury regarding the People’s burden to disprove defendant’s alibi defense beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence supports the jury’s verdict which implicitly rejected that defense.

Nor do we find that a reversal is warranted by reason of the court’s excusal of a sworn juror on the second day of trial, prior to the commencement of the People’s case. The court waited 50 minutes for the juror to appear and made repeated efforts to locate the juror and ascertain the circumstances of the juror’s absence, all of which were set forth on the record, before excusing the missing juror and replacing him with a alternate. Accordingly, given the early stage of the trial and the reasonable attempt to locate the juror, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in excusing the juror and the conviction should be affirmed. (See, People v Page, People v Washington, 72 NY2d 69, 73-74.) Concur—Kupferman, P. J., Asch, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

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

Initially, we note that, contrary to defendant’s arguments, his guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt and that there is no basis to disturb the jury’s verdict which was not against the weight of the evidence and rested on determinations of credibility. (See, People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755.) The wheelchair-bound victim had previously known the defendant and had ample opportunity to observe him during the commission of the crime, thereby supporting her identification testimony. The court properly instructed the jury regarding the People’s burden to disprove defendant’s alibi defense beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence supports the jury’s verdict which implicitly rejected that defense.

Nor do we find that a reversal is warranted by reason of the court’s excusal of a sworn juror on the second day of trial, prior to the commencement of the People’s case. The court waited 50 minutes for the juror to appear and made repeated efforts to locate the juror and ascertain the circumstances of the juror’s absence, all of which were set forth on the record, before excusing the missing juror and replacing him with a alternate. Accordingly, given the early stage of the trial and the reasonable attempt to locate the juror, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in excusing the juror and the conviction should be affirmed. (See, People v Page, People v Washington, 72 NY2d 69, 73-74.) Concur—Kupferman, P. J., Asch, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 404, 551 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morales-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack