People v. Sarasti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedJune 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 624 (People v. Sarasti) 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. 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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 624, 645 N.Y.2d 39, 645 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sarasti-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack