People v. Spragion

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spragion

288 A.D.2d 498, 733 N.Y.S.2d 487, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11428

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 498 (People v. Spragion) 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. Spragion, 288 A.D.2d 498, 733 N.Y.S.2d 487, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered August 13, 1999, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After the presentation of all of the evidence at trial, juror number six sent a note asking the Trial Judge if she could “vote undecided.” The Trial Judge responded by re-reading to all of the jurors, with the consent of the defense counsel, its concluding instructions on how they should try to reach a unanimous verdict without relinquishing any strongly-held beliefs. Thereafter, juror number seven sent a note complaining that juror number six was not cooperating with the other jurors in their discussion of the issues. The Trial Judge again instructed the jurors on their duty to deliberate, to try to agree, but not to relinquish their honest convictions. The Trial Judge concluded by re-reading its charge on reasonable doubt.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his current claims that the Trial Judge’s instructions were not responsive to the jurors’ notes, lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof, and coerced a verdict (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, the defense counsel did not ask the Trial Judge to question juror number six in camera to ascertain her psychological stability (see, People v Jackson, 76 NY2d 908; People v Pacheco, 156 AD2d 593).

In any event, the defendant’s contentions are without merit, as the instructions were proper, addressed the jurors’ concerns, and did not lower the prosecution’s burden of proof (see, People v Weinberg, 83 NY2d 262, 267; People v Ali, 47 NY2d 920, 921; People v Acosta, 182 AD2d 768). The Trial Judge, who observed juror number six throughout the trial, considered her fit (see, People v Moore, 242 AD2d 882; People v Glover, 237 AD2d 104).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Adams, 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 (Firetog, J.), rendered August 13, 1999, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After the presentation of all of the evidence at trial, juror number six sent a note asking the Trial Judge if she could “vote undecided.” The Trial Judge responded by re-reading to all of the jurors, with the consent of the defense counsel, its concluding instructions on how they should try to reach a unanimous verdict without relinquishing any strongly-held beliefs. Thereafter, juror number seven sent a note complaining that juror number six was not cooperating with the other jurors in their discussion of the issues. The Trial Judge again instructed the jurors on their duty to deliberate, to try to agree, but not to relinquish their honest convictions. The Trial Judge concluded by re-reading its charge on reasonable doubt.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his current claims that the Trial Judge’s instructions were not responsive to the jurors’ notes, lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof, and coerced a verdict (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, the defense counsel did not ask the Trial Judge to question juror number six in camera to ascertain her psychological stability (see, People v Jackson, 76 NY2d 908; People v Pacheco, 156 AD2d 593).

In any event, the defendant’s contentions are without merit, as the instructions were proper, addressed the jurors’ concerns, and did not lower the prosecution’s burden of proof (see, People v Weinberg, 83 NY2d 262, 267; People v Ali, 47 NY2d 920, 921; People v Acosta, 182 AD2d 768). The Trial Judge, who observed juror number six throughout the trial, considered her fit (see, People v Moore, 242 AD2d 882; People v Glover, 237 AD2d 104).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 498, 733 N.Y.S.2d 487, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spragion-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack