People v. Mower

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mower

144 A.D.2d 117, 534 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10117

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 144 A.D.2d 117 (People v. Mower) 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. Mower, 144 A.D.2d 117, 534 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10117 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered June 16, 1987, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of sodomy in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child.

In the course of accepting the jury’s verdict, County Court asked the forelady to "rise and announce your verdict”. On each of the six counts submitted to the jury, she stated "we found him guilty”, after which County Court asked defense counsel whether he had any applications. When counsel answered "not at this time”, the court discharged the jury. On appeal, defendant maintains the judgment of conviction should be reversed because County Court failed to comply with CPL 310.40 (2) and 310.80 in that it neglected to ask the forelady whether the jury had agreed upon a verdict and did not inquire of the jury members collectively as to whether the verdict rendered and announced by the forelady was indeed their verdict. We affirm, for the error has not been preserved for review (see, People v Morilla, 7 NY2d 319, 320). Furthermore, we are of the view that People v Light (285 App Div 496), upon which defendant relies, is distinguishable in that there the trial court did not instruct the jury that its verdict must be unanimous, thereby leaving considerable doubt as to how the verdict was tallied (supra, at 497). In the case at hand, however, County Court twice charged the jury that its verdict must be unanimous and thus protected defendant’s right to conviction by a unanimous jury.

Defendant’s other contentions advanced in his pro se response to the People’s brief, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, that the prosecutor acted improperly, that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that he was otherwise deprived of a fair trial, are devoid of merit.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered June 16, 1987, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of sodomy in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child.

In the course of accepting the jury’s verdict, County Court asked the forelady to "rise and announce your verdict”. On each of the six counts submitted to the jury, she stated "we found him guilty”, after which County Court asked defense counsel whether he had any applications. When counsel answered "not at this time”, the court discharged the jury. On appeal, defendant maintains the judgment of conviction should be reversed because County Court failed to comply with CPL 310.40 (2) and 310.80 in that it neglected to ask the forelady whether the jury had agreed upon a verdict and did not inquire of the jury members collectively as to whether the verdict rendered and announced by the forelady was indeed their verdict. We affirm, for the error has not been preserved for review (see, People v Morilla, 7 NY2d 319, 320). Furthermore, we are of the view that People v Light (285 App Div 496), upon which defendant relies, is distinguishable in that there the trial court did not instruct the jury that its verdict must be unanimous, thereby leaving considerable doubt as to how the verdict was tallied (supra, at 497). In the case at hand, however, County Court twice charged the jury that its verdict must be unanimous and thus protected defendant’s right to conviction by a unanimous jury.

Defendant’s other contentions advanced in his pro se response to the People’s brief, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, that the prosecutor acted improperly, that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that he was otherwise deprived of a fair trial, are devoid of merit.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 117, 534 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mower-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack