People v. Turner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Turner

6 A.D.3d 1190, 775 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6170

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

DecidedApril 30, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 1190 (People v. Turner) 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. Turner, 6 A.D.3d 1190, 775 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank R Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered February 4, 2000. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and petit larceny.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not err in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. Viewing the “entire testimony” of the prospective juror (People v Torpey, 63 NY2d 361, 368 [1984], rearg denied 64 NY2d 885 [1985]; see People v Barber, 269 AD2d 758, 760 [2000]), we conclude that his statements did not “cast serious doubt on [his] ability to render an impartial verdict” inasmuch as he stated several times in response to questions by the court and the prosecutor that he would be fair and impartial (People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 363 [2001]). Thus, we conclude that the court, which had the opportunity to hear the statements and view the demeanor of the prospective juror, did not abuse its discretion in determining that the prospective juror’s “promise to be impartial” was credible (id.). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank R Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered February 4, 2000. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and petit larceny.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not err in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. Viewing the “entire testimony” of the prospective juror (People v Torpey, 63 NY2d 361, 368 [1984], rearg denied 64 NY2d 885 [1985]; see People v Barber, 269 AD2d 758, 760 [2000]), we conclude that his statements did not “cast serious doubt on [his] ability to render an impartial verdict” inasmuch as he stated several times in response to questions by the court and the prosecutor that he would be fair and impartial (People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 363 [2001]). Thus, we conclude that the court, which had the opportunity to hear the statements and view the demeanor of the prospective juror, did not abuse its discretion in determining that the prospective juror’s “promise to be impartial” was credible (id.). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 1190, 775 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-turner-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack