People v. Reeves

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reeves

287 A.D.2d 297, 731 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9362

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 297 (People v. Reeves) 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. Reeves, 287 A.D.2d 297, 731 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Corriere, J.), rendered April 1, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial when, during voir dire, the court presented a brief, objective justification of buy- and-bust operations in general in response to a prospective juror’s concern that such operations were dishonest. The court’s remarks aided in the selection of a fair jury and did not exhibit any bias in favor of the prosecution or preview any of the evidence against defendant. Accordingly, the court did not exceed the bounds of its supervisory role (see, People v Jamison, 47 NY2d 882). Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Corriere, J.), rendered April 1, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial when, during voir dire, the court presented a brief, objective justification of buy- and-bust operations in general in response to a prospective juror’s concern that such operations were dishonest. The court’s remarks aided in the selection of a fair jury and did not exhibit any bias in favor of the prosecution or preview any of the evidence against defendant. Accordingly, the court did not exceed the bounds of its supervisory role (see, People v Jamison, 47 NY2d 882). Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 297, 731 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reeves-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack