People v. Rosario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rosario

241 A.D.2d 502, 660 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7412

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 502 (People v. Rosario) 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. Rosario, 241 A.D.2d 502, 660 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered February 8, 1996, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), and obstructing governmental administration, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have granted a mistrial or discharged a sworn juror who was believed to have commented to another juror about the testimony of a witness while the attorneys were at the bench for a sidebar. The court questioned the two jurors [503]*503involved separately, in camera, in the presence of defense counsel and the prosecutor, and stated the reason for its ruling on the record (People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290). Although the commenting juror’s responses to the court’s inquiry, that she did not remember what she said, were equivocal, the court’s refusal to speculate was proper (People v Buford, supra). There was no evidence adduced that this juror was unable to render an impartial verdict so as to render her “grossly unqualified” pursuant to CPL 270.35 (1), and therefore, we see no reason to disturb the trial court’s ruling (see, People v Ingram, 213 AD2d 723, 724).

The defendant’s remaining contention does not require reversal. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered February 8, 1996, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), and obstructing governmental administration, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have granted a mistrial or discharged a sworn juror who was believed to have commented to another juror about the testimony of a witness while the attorneys were at the bench for a sidebar. The court questioned the two jurors [503]*503involved separately, in camera, in the presence of defense counsel and the prosecutor, and stated the reason for its ruling on the record (People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290). Although the commenting juror’s responses to the court’s inquiry, that she did not remember what she said, were equivocal, the court’s refusal to speculate was proper (People v Buford, supra). There was no evidence adduced that this juror was unable to render an impartial verdict so as to render her “grossly unqualified” pursuant to CPL 270.35 (1), and therefore, we see no reason to disturb the trial court’s ruling (see, People v Ingram, 213 AD2d 723, 724).

The defendant’s remaining contention does not require reversal. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 502, 660 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rosario-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack