People v. Wilkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wilkins

16 A.D.3d 217, 790 N.Y.S.2d 666, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2493

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 217 (People v. Wilkins) 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. Wilkins, 16 A.D.3d 217, 790 N.Y.S.2d 666, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered November 25, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s response to a jury note does not warrant reversal. The deliberating jury’s question, relating to specific testimony, appeared to call for a yes or no answer, but could not reasonably be answered in that manner. Instead, the court gave a fair and balanced response, essentially repeating instructions already delivered in its main charge, and the court did not express or imply any opinion as to the credibility of any witness or how the [218]*218jury should decide the case (see People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 684-685 [1992]). Defendant’s interpretation of the note rests on speculation as to the jury’s thought processes. In any event, were we to find any error or inadequacy in this instruction, we would find it harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, which included the recovery of buy money from defendant and identification testimony by multiple officers.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion made when an officer testified that defendant possessed marijuana at the time of his arrest. Although this was an uncharged crime, the court promptly struck the testimony and instructed the jury to disregard it. The court’s curative actions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]).

The court properly denied defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who initially expressed a tendency to give undue credence to police officers, but ultimately gave an unequivocal assurance that he could put that inclination aside (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered November 25, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s response to a jury note does not warrant reversal. The deliberating jury’s question, relating to specific testimony, appeared to call for a yes or no answer, but could not reasonably be answered in that manner. Instead, the court gave a fair and balanced response, essentially repeating instructions already delivered in its main charge, and the court did not express or imply any opinion as to the credibility of any witness or how the [218]*218jury should decide the case (see People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 684-685 [1992]). Defendant’s interpretation of the note rests on speculation as to the jury’s thought processes. In any event, were we to find any error or inadequacy in this instruction, we would find it harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, which included the recovery of buy money from defendant and identification testimony by multiple officers.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion made when an officer testified that defendant possessed marijuana at the time of his arrest. Although this was an uncharged crime, the court promptly struck the testimony and instructed the jury to disregard it. The court’s curative actions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]).

The court properly denied defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who initially expressed a tendency to give undue credence to police officers, but ultimately gave an unequivocal assurance that he could put that inclination aside (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 217, 790 N.Y.S.2d 666, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wilkins-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack