People v. Rein

278 A.D.2d 255, 717 N.Y.S.2d 292, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12599
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 4, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 255 (People v. Rein) 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. Rein, 278 A.D.2d 255, 717 N.Y.S.2d 292, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12599 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (La Pera, J.), rendered June 17, 1999, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (two counts), unsafely changing lanes, failure to give the appropriate signal when changing lanes, and failure to use a seat belt, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.

There is no evidence that the prospective juror who the defendant challenged for cause harbored “actual bias” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]). Rather, that juror gave unequivocal assurances [256]*256that he could set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict (see, People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600).

Finally, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in declining to question jurors about a newspaper article which did not mention this case or this defendant (see, People v Chapman, 202 AD2d 297). Mangano, P. J., Luciano, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Cunningham
285 A.D.2d 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Snyder
281 A.D.2d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 255, 717 N.Y.S.2d 292, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rein-nyappdiv-2000.