People v. Swinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Swinson

222 A.D.2d 464, 635 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12614

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 464 (People v. Swinson) 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. Swinson, 222 A.D.2d 464, 635 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered May 11, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that a letter received by the court from Juror No. 3 after the rendition of the verdict indicated that he was grossly unqualified to serve is not properly before this Court, since the defendant failed to move to set aside the verdict on this ground (see, CPL 330.30 [2]; see also, People v Irizarry, 83 NY2d 557). Further, the defendant’s reliance on CPL 270.35 in support of his position is misplaced, in that this [465]*465section only applies to allegations of juror misconduct which are made known before the verdict is rendered (see, People v Rodriguez, 71 NY2d 214, 218). In any event, there is nothing in the record indicating that Juror No. 3 was grossly unqualified to decide the defendant’s case fairly, or that he engaged in misconduct of any kind (see, People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 298). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Krausman, 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 (Demarest, J.), rendered May 11, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that a letter received by the court from Juror No. 3 after the rendition of the verdict indicated that he was grossly unqualified to serve is not properly before this Court, since the defendant failed to move to set aside the verdict on this ground (see, CPL 330.30 [2]; see also, People v Irizarry, 83 NY2d 557). Further, the defendant’s reliance on CPL 270.35 in support of his position is misplaced, in that this [465]*465section only applies to allegations of juror misconduct which are made known before the verdict is rendered (see, People v Rodriguez, 71 NY2d 214, 218). In any event, there is nothing in the record indicating that Juror No. 3 was grossly unqualified to decide the defendant’s case fairly, or that he engaged in misconduct of any kind (see, People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 298). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 464, 635 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-swinson-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack