From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cherry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 28, 2001
286 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

(1041) KA 99-05120.

September 28, 2001.

(Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Sirkin, J. — Sodomy, 1st Degree.)

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HAYES, WISNER, KEHOE AND BURNS, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of one count of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 20.00, 130.35), two counts of sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law § 20.00, 130.50) and four counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 20.00, 130.65). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his sole contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to excuse for cause a prospective juror who informed the court that her sister had been raped. "Defendant cannot rely upon the objection of the attorney for the codefendant to preserve an issue for [our] review" ( People v. Neil, 213 A.D.2d 1014, 1014, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 783; see also, People v. Buckley, 75 N.Y.2d 843, 846). In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit. The court conducted a proper inquiry of the prospective juror and "obtain[ed] her unequivocal assurance that she could be fair" ( People v. Arnold, ___ N.Y.2d ___, ___ [decided June 12, 2001]; see, People v. Chambers, ___ A.D.2d ___ [decided May 2, 2001]; People v. Bludson, 281 A.D.2d 948, lv granted 96 N.Y.2d 808).


Summaries of

People v. Cherry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 28, 2001
286 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Cherry

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JAMES CHERRY…

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

Date published: Sep 28, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
730 N.Y.S.2d 753

Citing Cases

State of N.Y. v. Narvaez

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in…

Roberts v. Batista

Therefore, a codefendant's counsel's objection is not sufficient. See, e.g., People v. Buckley, 75 N.Y.2d…