People v. Adams

16 Citing cases

  1. People v. Monroe

    90 N.Y.2d 982 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 24 times

    I would note, moreover, that the informality of the procedure that the trial court sanctioned gives rise to a very realistic concern that substantive irregularities did, in fact, occur. For example, at one point, the Judge told the jurors that those who had not seen the exhibits earlier would "have a chance" to do so during an extended lunch break. The court's casual approach suggested that the viewing was optional, raising the possibility that the evidence was viewed by some, but not all of the jurors — an infirmity that could require a mistrial ( see, People v Adams, 179 A.D.2d 764 [juror grossly disqualified under CPL 270.35 where it was possible that he had missed portions of the testimony due to his dozing]). Given the level of impropriety here and the risk of prejudice it created, it is unfortunate that the majority has chosen to sanction rather than condemn this Judge's casual practice with regard to predeliberation viewings of exhibits.

  2. People v. Carron

    36 N.Y.S.3d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

    While “[a] defendant has a constitutional right to a trial by a particular jury chosen according to law, in whose selection [the defendant] has had a voice” (People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 297–298 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ), the integrity of the judicial process requires that “[i]f at any time after the trial jury has been sworn ... the court finds ... that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case ... the court must discharge such juror” (CPL 270.35[1] [emphasis added] ). “It is a settled principle that a juror who has not heard all the evidence is grossly unqualified to render a verdict” (People v. Adams, 179 A.D.2d 764, 765 [1992] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see e.g. People v. Buel, 53 AD3d 930, 931 [2008] ; People v. Snowden, 44 AD3d 492, 493 [2007] ; People v. Simmons, 31 AD3d 1051, 1053 [2006] ; People v. Russell, 112 A.D.2d 451, 453 [1985] ). Here, in the course of an appropriate “probing and tactful inquiry' of the juror in the presence of counsel” (People v. Robinson, 121 AD3d 1179, 1181 [2014], quoting People v. Cargill, 70 N.Y.2d 687, 689 [1987] ), the court stated that it had observed the juror “nodding off continuously” over the course of an hour of testimony and repeatedly falling asleep during the following hour.

  3. People v. Carron

    36 N.Y.S.3d 408 (N.Y. App. Term 2016)

    While “[a] defendant has a constitutional right to a trial by a particular jury chosen according to law, in whose selection [the defendant] has had a voice” (People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 297–298 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ), the integrity of the judicial process requires that “[i]f at any time after the trial jury has been sworn ... the court finds ... that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case ... the court must discharge such juror” (CPL 270.35[1] [emphasis added] ). “It is a settled principle that a juror who has not heard all the evidence is grossly unqualified to render a verdict” (People v. Adams, 179 A.D.2d 764, 765 [1992] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see e.g. People v. Buel, 53 AD3d 930, 931 [2008] ; People v. Snowden, 44 AD3d 492, 493 [2007] ; People v. Simmons, 31 AD3d 1051, 1053 [2006] ; People v. Russell, 112 A.D.2d 451, 453 [1985] ). Here, in the course of an appropriate “probing and tactful inquiry' of the juror in the presence of counsel” (People v. Robinson, 121 AD3d 1179, 1181 [2014], quoting People v. Cargill, 70 N.Y.2d 687, 689 [1987] ), the court stated that it had observed the juror “nodding off continuously” over the course of an hour of testimony and repeatedly falling asleep during the following hour.

  4. People v. Carron

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 50555 (N.Y. App. Term 2016)   Cited 8 times

    While "[a] defendant has a constitutional right to a trial by a particular jury chosen according to law, in whose selection [the defendant] has had a voice" (People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 297-298 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), the integrity of the judicial process requires that "[i]f at any time after the trial jury has been sworn . . . the court finds . . . that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case . . . the court must discharge such juror" (CPL 270.35 [1] [emphasis added]). "It is a settled principle that a juror who has not heard all the evidence is grossly unqualified to render a verdict" ( People v Adams, 179 AD2d 764, 765 [1992] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see e. g. People v Buel, 53 AD3d 930, 931 [2008]; People v Snowden, 44 AD3d 492, 493 [2007]; People v Simmons, 31 AD3d 1051, 1053 [2006]; People v Russell, 112 AD2d 451, 453 [1985]). Here, in the course of an appropriate " probing and tactful inquiry' of the juror in the presence of counsel" ( People v Robinson, 121 AD3d 1179, 1181 [2014], quoting People v Cargill, 70 NY2d 687, 689 [1987]), the court stated that it had observed the juror "nodding off continuously" over the course of an hour of testimony and repeatedly falling asleep during the following hour.

  5. People v. Robinson

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 7018 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

    0, 299 [1987]; People v Busreth, 35 AD3d 965, 967 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 920 [2007]) and accepted the juror's assurances that he had not fallen asleep, had heard everything that had transpired and was able to continue serving as a juror. While defendant takes issue with the court's failure to ask certain questions of this juror, that contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not object to the court's inquiry (see People v Busreth, 35 AD3d at 967; People v Wright, 16 AD3d 1113, 1113 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 857 [2005]). Under these circumstances, there is no basis to disturb County Court's conclusion that the juror had not missed a significant portion of the trial and, as such, was not grossly unqualified to continue to serve as a juror (see People v Buel, 53 AD3d at 931; People v Wright, 16 AD3d at 1114; People v Bailey, 258 AD2d 807, 808 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1001 [1999]; compare People v Snowden, 44 AD3d 492, 493 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1039 [2008]; People v Adams, 179 AD2d 764, 765 [1992]). To the extent not specifically addressed herein, defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

  6. People v. Robinson

    121 A.D.3d 1179 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 22 times
    Rejecting a claim that a juror should have been discharged where the trial court had “accepted the juror's assurances that he had not fallen asleep, had heard everything that had transpired and was able to continue serving as a juror”

    e defendant takes issue with the court's failure to ask certain questions of this juror, that contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not object to the court's inquiry (see People v. Busreth, 35 A.D.3d at 967, 824 N.Y.S.2d 814 ; People v. Wright, 16 A.D.3d 1113, 1113, 790 N.Y.S.2d 800 [2005], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 857, 797 N.Y.S.2d 431, 830 N.E.2d 330 [2005] ). Under these circumstances, there is no basis to disturb County Court's conclusion that the juror had not missed a significant portion of the trial and, as such, was not grossly unqualified to continue to serve as a juror (see People v. Buel, 53 A.D.3d at 931, 861 N.Y.S.2d 535 ; People v. Wright, 16 A.D.3d at 1114, 790 N.Y.S.2d 800 ; People v. Bailey, 258 A.D.2d 807, 808, 686 N.Y.S.2d 145 [1999], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1001, 695 N.Y.S.2d 747, 717 N.E.2d 1084 [1999] ; compare People v. Snowden, 44 A.D.3d 492, 493, 843 N.Y.S.2d 315 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1039, 852 N.Y.S.2d 24, 881 N.E.2d 1211 [2008] ; People v. Adams, 179 A.D.2d 764, 765, 578 N.Y.S.2d 643 [1992] ).To the extent not specifically addressed herein, defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

  7. People v. Blond

    96 A.D.3d 1149 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 25 times

    Defendant also argues that Supreme Court should have conducted an inquiry of a juror who appeared to be sleeping at one point during the trial, yet he did not make this request of the court and did not object to the juror's continued service. Accordingly, his argument that an inquiry should have occurred is unpreserved for our review ( see People v. Galloway, 93 A.D.3d at 1072, 940 N.Y.S.2d 699). Were we to consider this matter, we would find that Supreme Court's observations provided it with an adequate basis for its conclusion that the juror had not missed a significant portion of the trial testimony and, therefore, was not grossly unqualified to continue to serve as a juror ( see People v. Buel, 53 A.D.3d 930, 931, 861 N.Y.S.2d 535 [2008];compare People v. Adams, 179 A.D.2d 764, 765, 578 N.Y.S.2d 643 [2d Dept. 1992] ). Nor can we agree with defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

  8. People v. Wells

    63 A.D.3d 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 14 times

    The hearing court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request to call the complainants as witnesses at his suppression hearing ( see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808; People v Taylor, 80 NY2d 1, 15). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not err in discharging a sworn juror who, prior to empanelment, expressed concerns about his ability to concentrate on the trial due to jobrelated commitments ( see People v Daniels, 59 AD3d 730; People v Huntley, 237 AD2d 533, 534; People v Oyewole, 220 AD2d 624; People v Adams, 179 AD2d 764, 765; People v Vasquez, 141 AD2d 880, 881). Additionally, the trial court properly determined that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree.

  9. People v. Buel

    53 A.D.3d 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 22 times

    The juror informed the court that while he was tired, he had heard the testimony and had, in fact, not fallen asleep. Based on this appropriate "probing and tactful inquiry" ( People v Cargill, 70 NY2d 687, 689; see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299; People v Bailey, 258 AD2d 807, 808, lv denied 93 NY2d 1001), the court had an adequate basis for its conclusion that the juror had not missed significant portions of the trial testimony and, therefore, was not grossly unqualified to continue to serve as a juror ( compare People v Adams, 179 AD2d 764, 765). Defendant also argues that the People committed reversible error when the prosecutor repeatedly asked him during cross-examination if he believed that the victims had fabricated portions of the testimony they gave at trial.

  10. People v. Bradley

    38 A.D.3d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 15 times

    During the trial, the court observed that a particular juror had been sleeping, and after an in camera interview of this juror, the court concluded that she was "grossly unqualified" (CPL 270.35), and discharged her from the jury. Contrary to the defendant's argument on appeal, the discharge of this juror was not an improvident exercise of the trial court's discretion ( id.; see People v Simpkins, 16 AD3d 601; People v Rogers, 266 AD2d 481, 482; People v Adams, 179 AD2d 764, 765). The defendant's contention that other jurors had been sleeping is unpreserved for appellate review since he neither requested that the court interview any other juror in camera nor moved to dismiss any other juror ( see CPL 470.05; see People v Wright, 16 AD3d 1113; People v Fenderson, 203 AD2d 585, 586).