People v. Willoughby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Willoughby

286 A.D.2d 652, 730 N.Y.S.2d 430, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8842

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 652 (People v. Willoughby) 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. Willoughby, 286 A.D.2d 652, 730 N.Y.S.2d 430, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered February 11, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3V2 to 7 years and time served, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly rejected defendant’s challenges for cause to two prospective jurors. We note that neither panelist questioned his own ability to render an impartial verdict. The panelists’ statements did not cast doubt on either’s ability to be fair (see, People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered February 11, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3V2 to 7 years and time served, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly rejected defendant’s challenges for cause to two prospective jurors. We note that neither panelist questioned his own ability to render an impartial verdict. The panelists’ statements did not cast doubt on either’s ability to be fair (see, People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 652, 730 N.Y.S.2d 430, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-willoughby-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack