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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Woods. Read the opinion of the Court — 189 A.D.2d 838 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 1995·Published

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.

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

216 A.D.2d 502 (People v. Woods) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related