People v. Rosemond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rosemond

270 A.D.2d 293, 704 N.Y.S.2d 111, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2481

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 293 (People v. Rosemond) 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. Rosemond, 270 A.D.2d 293, 704 N.Y.S.2d 111, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered October 29, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court was “entitled to charge the jury fairly as to the relative duties of the jury and the Judge” (People v Garcia, 63 AD2d 719), after the defense counsel improperly interjected before the jury that the defendant “faced 25 years”. Although the trial court’s punishment charge exceeded that which is provided for in CPL 300.10 (2) by stating “that in the event you find defendant guilty, this Court has wide discretion to fashion an appropriate punishment and is in no way limited to any particular sentence”, it merely sought to rectify any jury misconception that the court was limited to such a sentence (see, People v Stallings, 186 AD2d 445, 446). While perhaps better left unsaid, any possible error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Walstatter, 73 AD2d 175, 178, affd 53 NY2d 871).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his constitutional ' right to the free exercise of his religion was not violated. The trial court properly delayed the defendant’s observance of his Friday religious services to permit the jury, which was in its second day of deliberations, to continue deliberations and then announce its verdict. The court had a legitimate and compelling State interest in completing the trial without further sequestration of the jury over the weekend (see, People v Williams, 197 AD2d 401). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Florio and H. Miller, 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 (Knipel, J.), rendered October 29, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court was “entitled to charge the jury fairly as to the relative duties of the jury and the Judge” (People v Garcia, 63 AD2d 719), after the defense counsel improperly interjected before the jury that the defendant “faced 25 years”. Although the trial court’s punishment charge exceeded that which is provided for in CPL 300.10 (2) by stating “that in the event you find defendant guilty, this Court has wide discretion to fashion an appropriate punishment and is in no way limited to any particular sentence”, it merely sought to rectify any jury misconception that the court was limited to such a sentence (see, People v Stallings, 186 AD2d 445, 446). While perhaps better left unsaid, any possible error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Walstatter, 73 AD2d 175, 178, affd 53 NY2d 871).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his constitutional ' right to the free exercise of his religion was not violated. The trial court properly delayed the defendant’s observance of his Friday religious services to permit the jury, which was in its second day of deliberations, to continue deliberations and then announce its verdict. The court had a legitimate and compelling State interest in completing the trial without further sequestration of the jury over the weekend (see, People v Williams, 197 AD2d 401). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 293, 704 N.Y.S.2d 111, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rosemond-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack