People v. Pinero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pinero

220 A.D.2d 540, 632 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9947

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 540 (People v. Pinero) 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. Pinero, 220 A.D.2d 540, 632 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered December 7, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and determined to have been established.

Reversal is mandated in this case by virtue of the Court of Appeals decision in People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d 247). The prosecutor and the defense counsel, in the presence of the court but in the absence of the defendant, questioned a prospective juror about his employment as an FBI agent and its potential influence on his objectivity. Such questioning of a prospective juror in the absence of the defendant has been held to be improper, and reversal is mandated, despite the absence of an objection by the defendant (see, People v Antommarchi, supra, at 250). Moreover, harmless error analysis is inapplicable (People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759; People v Daniels, 213 AD2d 419).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, 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 County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered December 7, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and determined to have been established.

Reversal is mandated in this case by virtue of the Court of Appeals decision in People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d 247). The prosecutor and the defense counsel, in the presence of the court but in the absence of the defendant, questioned a prospective juror about his employment as an FBI agent and its potential influence on his objectivity. Such questioning of a prospective juror in the absence of the defendant has been held to be improper, and reversal is mandated, despite the absence of an objection by the defendant (see, People v Antommarchi, supra, at 250). Moreover, harmless error analysis is inapplicable (People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759; People v Daniels, 213 AD2d 419).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 540, 632 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pinero-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack