People v. Quintana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Quintana

262 A.D.2d 101, 689 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6445

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 10, 1999·Published·Cited by 10 cases

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

—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.

People v. Quintana, 262 A.D.2d 101, 689 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

262 A.D.2d 101 (People v. Quintana) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related