People v. Sarasti

228 A.D.2d 624, 645 N.Y.2d 39, 645 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7069
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 17, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

At the end of the second day of testimony during the trial of Indictment No. 4321/92, the Trial Judge asked a court officer to send the jury home, and to "[a]dvise [the jurors] to adhere to the rules of conduct they were previously instructed on, and to be prepared for possible sequestration”. There is no indication in the record that the court officer did anything more than he was asked to do. Although it would have been better practice for the Trial Judge to issue those instructions himself (see, e.g., People v Bonaparte, 78 NY2d 26, 32; People v Smith, 181 AD2d 844, 845), on the present record, the delegation to the court officer of a ministerial function (see, People v Bonaparte, supra, at 30) does not warrant reversal (see, People v Nacey, 78 NY2d 990).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Sarasti, 228 A.D.2d 624, 645 N.Y.2d 39, 645 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 624 (People v. Sarasti) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lopez
288 A.D.2d 118 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Williams
282 A.D.2d 224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Crespo
267 A.D.2d 36 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)