People v. Toval

216 A.D.2d 501, 628 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6454
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered June 15, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s challenges to two prospective jurors for cause. "The determination as to whether a prospective juror can provide reasonable jury service in a given case is left largely to the discretion of the trial court, which can question and observe the prospective juror during voir dire” (People v Pagan, 191 AD2d 651, 651-652; see also, People v Holder, 204 [502]*502AD2d 482). Here, neither prospective juror possessed a state of mind which would have precluded the defendant from receiving a fair trial (see, CPL 270.20). Accordingly, the defendant’s contentions are without merit.

The defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

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

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

People v. Toval, 216 A.D.2d 501, 628 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

216 A.D.2d 501 (People v. Toval) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Callaghan
220 A.D.2d 609 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)