People v. Woods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Woods

216 A.D.2d 502, 628 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6456

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

DecidedJune 19, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 502 (People v. Woods) 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. Woods, 216 A.D.2d 502, 628 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered June 15, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[503]*503Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. Viewing the prospective juror’s statements as a whole (see, People v Blyden, 55 NY2d 73, 78), these statements do not indicate that the prospective juror possessed "a state of mind that [was] likely to preclude [her] from rendering an impartial verdict” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; cf., People v Punch, 215 AD2d 410).

The sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Pizzuto, J. P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered June 15, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[503]*503Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. Viewing the prospective juror’s statements as a whole (see, People v Blyden, 55 NY2d 73, 78), these statements do not indicate that the prospective juror possessed "a state of mind that [was] likely to preclude [her] from rendering an impartial verdict” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; cf., People v Punch, 215 AD2d 410).

The sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Pizzuto, J. P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 502, 628 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woods-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack