People v. Narvaez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Narvaez

34 A.D.3d 847, 823 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 847 (People v. Narvaez) 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. Narvaez, 34 A.D.3d 847, 823 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bangs County (Guzman, J.), rendered January 6, 2005, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (two counts), rape in the second degree (18 counts), and rape in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[848]*848Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror, whose former relative was the victim of sexual abuse, since the prospective juror gave an unequivocal assurance that she could be fair and impartial (see People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 363 [2001]; People v Nowlin, 297 AD2d 554 [2002]; People v Cherry, 286 AD2d 913 [2001]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, 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, Bangs County (Guzman, J.), rendered January 6, 2005, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (two counts), rape in the second degree (18 counts), and rape in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[848]*848Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror, whose former relative was the victim of sexual abuse, since the prospective juror gave an unequivocal assurance that she could be fair and impartial (see People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 363 [2001]; People v Nowlin, 297 AD2d 554 [2002]; People v Cherry, 286 AD2d 913 [2001]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 847, 823 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-narvaez-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack