People v. Payton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Payton

279 A.D.2d 483, 719 N.Y.S.2d 103, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 165

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 483 (People v. Payton) 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. Payton, 279 A.D.2d 483, 719 N.Y.S.2d 103, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered June 17, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the trial court properly determined that a sworn juror was grossly unqualified to serve. The record reveals that the juror withheld information regarding his prior conviction for possession of marihuana and that his brother-in-law had been convicted of a crime until after being sworn. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly discharged that juror pursuant to CPL 270.35 (see, People v Richards, 267 AD2d 18; People v Tamayo, 256 AD2d 98; Matter of Mikel v Mark, 249 AD2d 993). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, 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, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered June 17, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the trial court properly determined that a sworn juror was grossly unqualified to serve. The record reveals that the juror withheld information regarding his prior conviction for possession of marihuana and that his brother-in-law had been convicted of a crime until after being sworn. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly discharged that juror pursuant to CPL 270.35 (see, People v Richards, 267 AD2d 18; People v Tamayo, 256 AD2d 98; Matter of Mikel v Mark, 249 AD2d 993). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 483, 719 N.Y.S.2d 103, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-payton-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack