People v. Semper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Semper

276 A.D.2d 263, 714 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9856

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 263 (People v. Semper) 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. Semper, 276 A.D.2d 263, 714 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered October 8, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of newly discovered evidencé, since such evidence did not create a probability of a more favorable verdict. The alleged weight discrepancy is trivial.

The court properly denied defendant’s challenge for cause. The record fails to support defendant’s assertion that the prospective juror expressed doubt as to his ability to be fair in the first place (compare, People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600). In any event, reading the colloquy as a whole, we find that the prospective juror unequivocally stated that his position would not influence his verdict, and that he would render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence (see, People v Torpey, 63 NY2d 361, 367). Taken in context, the prospective juror’s occasional use of allegedly equivocal words such as “try” was insignificant. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered October 8, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of newly discovered evidencé, since such evidence did not create a probability of a more favorable verdict. The alleged weight discrepancy is trivial.

The court properly denied defendant’s challenge for cause. The record fails to support defendant’s assertion that the prospective juror expressed doubt as to his ability to be fair in the first place (compare, People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600). In any event, reading the colloquy as a whole, we find that the prospective juror unequivocally stated that his position would not influence his verdict, and that he would render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence (see, People v Torpey, 63 NY2d 361, 367). Taken in context, the prospective juror’s occasional use of allegedly equivocal words such as “try” was insignificant. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 263, 714 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-semper-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack