People v. O'Connor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. O'Connor

106 A.D.2d 900, 483 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21815

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 106 A.D.2d 900 (People v. O'Connor) 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. O'Connor, 106 A.D.2d 900, 483 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: During the examination of a prosecution witness, a juror informed the court that he knew of the witness’ family, and may have known the witness in his younger days. The juror was interrogated out of the presence of the other jurors to determine the nature of any relationship and whether any bias existed which would disqualify him. The record supports the court’s finding that the juror “exhibited no bias whatsoever, no prejudice, no sympathy * * * [and] he would treat this witness in the same manner as he would any other witness”. Therefore, the juror was not “grossly unqualified” to serve and thus was not subject to discharge (CPL 270.35; People v Ivery, 96 AD2d 712).

Any claim that the court erred in informing the jury that defense counsel had requested the court not to give the “no unfavorable inference” charge (see CPL 300.10, subd 2), has not been preserved for review. Were we to reach this issue in the interests of justice, we would conclude that this one erroneous statement in an otherwise proper charge did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

[901]*901We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions, including his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J. — robbery, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: During the examination of a prosecution witness, a juror informed the court that he knew of the witness’ family, and may have known the witness in his younger days. The juror was interrogated out of the presence of the other jurors to determine the nature of any relationship and whether any bias existed which would disqualify him. The record supports the court’s finding that the juror “exhibited no bias whatsoever, no prejudice, no sympathy * * * [and] he would treat this witness in the same manner as he would any other witness”. Therefore, the juror was not “grossly unqualified” to serve and thus was not subject to discharge (CPL 270.35; People v Ivery, 96 AD2d 712).

Any claim that the court erred in informing the jury that defense counsel had requested the court not to give the “no unfavorable inference” charge (see CPL 300.10, subd 2), has not been preserved for review. Were we to reach this issue in the interests of justice, we would conclude that this one erroneous statement in an otherwise proper charge did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

[901]*901We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions, including his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J. — robbery, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 900, 483 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oconnor-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack