People v. Sumpter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sumpter

82 A.D.2d 869, 440 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14560

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

DecidedJune 15, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 869 (People v. Sumpter) 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. Sumpter, 82 A.D.2d 869, 440 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (HcHahon, J.), rendered September 12,1979, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. We find no merit in the defendant’s argument that error occurred in a ruling which denied removal of a sworn juror on the basis of his recognition of the victim/complainant. During voir dire of that juror, upon his apprising the court of his recognition of the witness, it was established conclusively that the “relationship” between the two consisted of no more than the complainant having worked briefly in the cafeteria at the juror’s place of business, and the complainant having participated in an amateur dramatic production at least two years earlier which had been directed by the juror’s former secretary. The juror had seen the production. Upon these facts, we find that no basis existed for a successful challenge to that juror for cause (CPL 270.20, subd 1, par [c]) and no basis existed for his removal for being grossly unqualified to serve in the case (CPL 270.35). Since there was no objection to the circumstantial evidence charge, no issues concerning the charge were preserved for appeal. Nevertheless, upon examining it in the interest of justice, we hold the charge to have been proper. Hopkins, J. P., Hangano, Hargett and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (HcHahon, J.), rendered September 12,1979, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. We find no merit in the defendant’s argument that error occurred in a ruling which denied removal of a sworn juror on the basis of his recognition of the victim/complainant. During voir dire of that juror, upon his apprising the court of his recognition of the witness, it was established conclusively that the “relationship” between the two consisted of no more than the complainant having worked briefly in the cafeteria at the juror’s place of business, and the complainant having participated in an amateur dramatic production at least two years earlier which had been directed by the juror’s former secretary. The juror had seen the production. Upon these facts, we find that no basis existed for a successful challenge to that juror for cause (CPL 270.20, subd 1, par [c]) and no basis existed for his removal for being grossly unqualified to serve in the case (CPL 270.35). Since there was no objection to the circumstantial evidence charge, no issues concerning the charge were preserved for appeal. Nevertheless, upon examining it in the interest of justice, we hold the charge to have been proper. Hopkins, J. P., Hangano, Hargett and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 869, 440 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sumpter-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack