People v. Pemberton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pemberton

305 A.D.2d 430, 758 N.Y.S.2d 518

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 5, 2003·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered August 21, 2001, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. The record does not support a finding that the prospective juror possessed a “state of mind that [was] likely to preclude [her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]), or that there was a “substantial risk” that she would be unable to remain impartial (People v Harris, 247 AD2d 630 [1998]; see People v Williams, 63 NY2d 882 [1984]). Upon our review of the transcript of the voir dire proceedings as a whole and giving due deference to the determination of the Supreme Court, we conclude that the defendant’s challenge for cause was properly denied (see People v Harris, supra at 632). Santucci, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 (Tomei, J.), rendered August 21, 2001, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. The record does not support a finding that the prospective juror possessed a “state of mind that [was] likely to preclude [her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]), or that there was a “substantial risk” that she would be unable to remain impartial (People v Harris, 247 AD2d 630 [1998]; see People v Williams, 63 NY2d 882 [1984]). Upon our review of the transcript of the voir dire proceedings as a whole and giving due deference to the determination of the Supreme Court, we conclude that the defendant’s challenge for cause was properly denied (see People v Harris, supra at 632). Santucci, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

People v. Pemberton, 305 A.D.2d 430, 758 N.Y.S.2d 518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

305 A.D.2d 430 (People v. Pemberton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related