From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Bell v. Sherman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1991
174 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

June 24, 1991

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.


A juror who has not heard all of the evidence in a case is grossly unqualified to render a verdict and must, therefore, be discharged (see, People v Russell, 112 A.D.2d 451, 452). Where, as here, the discharge of the juror makes it impossible to continue with the trial, principles of double jeopardy will not act to bar a retrial (CPL 270.35, 280.10 Crim. Proc.). Further, we note that a defendant cannot consent to a trial by fewer than 12 jurors (see, Matter of Stressler v Hynes, 169 A.D.2d 750; N Y Const, art I, § 2; art VI, § 18; Cancemi v People, 18 N.Y. 128; People v Lester, 149 A.D.2d 975). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Bell v. Sherman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1991
174 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Matter of Bell v. Sherman

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of GARY BELL, Petitioner, v. RALPH SHERMAN et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 24, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
571 N.Y.S.2d 957

Citing Cases

People v. Gajadhar

He should be bound by that waiver. ( Cancemi v People, 18 NY 128; People v Page, 88 NY2d 1; People v Ryan, 19…

People v. Gajadhar

In light of Page, we conclude that earlier authority to the effect that a defendant cannot consent to trial…