People v. Traylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Traylor

283 A.D.2d 1013, 725 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4480

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

DecidedMay 2, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 1013 (People v. Traylor) 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. Traylor, 283 A.D.2d 1013, 725 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in granting the People’s challenge for cause of a prospective juror. Prospective jurors have a duty to answer voir dire questions truthfully (see, People v Cephus, 224 AD2d 706, 707; see also, Holland v Blake, 38 AD2d 344, 345-346, affd 31 NY2d 734). In the case of a challenge for cause of an unsworn juror, a trial court “should lean toward disqualifying a prospective juror of dubious impartiality” (People v Branch, 46 NY2d 645, 651). The record establishes that the juror failed to disclose a criminal conviction during voir dire. It was within the court’s discretion to determine that such failure showed that the juror had “a state of mind that [was] likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; see, People v Barber, 269 AD2d 758, 760). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in granting the People’s challenge for cause of a prospective juror. Prospective jurors have a duty to answer voir dire questions truthfully (see, People v Cephus, 224 AD2d 706, 707; see also, Holland v Blake, 38 AD2d 344, 345-346, affd 31 NY2d 734). In the case of a challenge for cause of an unsworn juror, a trial court “should lean toward disqualifying a prospective juror of dubious impartiality” (People v Branch, 46 NY2d 645, 651). The record establishes that the juror failed to disclose a criminal conviction during voir dire. It was within the court’s discretion to determine that such failure showed that the juror had “a state of mind that [was] likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; see, People v Barber, 269 AD2d 758, 760). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 1013, 725 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-traylor-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack