People v. Quintana
This text of 262 A.D.2d 101 (People v. Quintana) 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.
Opinion
—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.), rendered December 19, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant was not prejudiced by the court’s acceptance of a verdict without having responded to, or inquired about, a note from a deliberating juror indicating that another juror had not been properly participating in the deliberation process, and a note from the jury requesting a read back of certain testimony. In its subsequent note announcing that it had reached a verdict, the jury expressly withdrew the note requesting a read-back, and the fact that a verdict was reached carried the implication that any other problem had been resolved (see, People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963, 966-967; People v Diaz, 254 AD2d 233; People v Fuentes, 246 AD2d 474, lv denied 91 NY2d 941).
We conclude that the court’s restrictions on defendant’s [102]*102cross-examination of a police witness could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
262 A.D.2d 101, 689 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-quintana-nyappdiv-1999.