People v. Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wilson

138 A.D.3d 637, 28 N.Y.S.3d 877

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

DecidedApril 28, 2016

Docket975 2615/08

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 637 (People v. Wilson) 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. Wilson, 138 A.D.3d 637, 28 N.Y.S.3d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J., at jury trial, Barbara F. Newman, J., at sentencing), rendered July 23, 2013, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and attempted assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 17 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in replacing absent jurors in two instances. A court has broad discretion to replace a juror whose absence would cause a delay of two hours (People v Jeanty, 94 NY2d 507, 515-517 [2000]; CPL 270.35 [2] [a]). Here, each juror’s absence would have far exceeded two hours, and would have unduly disrupted a trial already plagued by delays.

The court also properly exercised its discretion in charging the jury, over defense counsel’s objection, that no adverse inference should be drawn from defendant’s exercise of his right not to be present. Defendant chose to absent himself late in the trial, and the court properly determined that the circumstances of the case called for such an instruction in order to explain why the trial was continuing notwithstanding defendant’s absence, after he had been absent on the prior day due to illness (see People v Brisbane, 205 AD2d 358 [1st Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 933 [1994]). Defendant’s claim of potential prejudice is speculative.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s pro se claims.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J., at jury trial, Barbara F. Newman, J., at sentencing), rendered July 23, 2013, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and attempted assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 17 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in replacing absent jurors in two instances. A court has broad discretion to replace a juror whose absence would cause a delay of two hours (People v Jeanty, 94 NY2d 507, 515-517 [2000]; CPL 270.35 [2] [a]). Here, each juror’s absence would have far exceeded two hours, and would have unduly disrupted a trial already plagued by delays.

The court also properly exercised its discretion in charging the jury, over defense counsel’s objection, that no adverse inference should be drawn from defendant’s exercise of his right not to be present. Defendant chose to absent himself late in the trial, and the court properly determined that the circumstances of the case called for such an instruction in order to explain why the trial was continuing notwithstanding defendant’s absence, after he had been absent on the prior day due to illness (see People v Brisbane, 205 AD2d 358 [1st Dept 1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 933 [1994]). Defendant’s claim of potential prejudice is speculative.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s pro se claims.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 637, 28 N.Y.S.3d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wilson-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack