From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dicks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 9, 2001
287 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted September 13, 2001.

October 9, 2001.

Andrew C. Fine, New York, N.Y. (Paul Wiener of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Ushir Pandit of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered June 21, 1999, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY and BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

At the trial, the defendant challenged a prospective juror for cause. When his application was denied, he peremptorily challenged the juror. Since the defendant failed to exhaust his peremptory challenges, the propriety of the denial of the challenge for cause does not constitute a ground for reversal (see, CPL 270.20; People v. Lynch, 95 N.Y.2d 243; People v. Culhane, 33 N.Y.2d 90, 97). The defendant's claim that the Supreme Court improperly curtailed the defense counsel's voir dire examination of the prospective juror, depriving the defense counsel of "potentially critical information" needed to decide whether to exercise a peremptory challenge or allow the prospective juror to remain on the jury, is contrary to the defendant's position at trial that the prospective juror should have been removed for cause. Therefore, that contention is not properly before us on appeal (see, People v. Espinol, 183 A.D.2d 407; People v. Caceras, 154 A.D.2d 310).

At the trial, the defendant's sole objection to the introduction of expert testimony concerning the practices of drug dealers was that the witness was not qualified. Accordingly, his present contention that the nature of the testimony was improper is unpreserved for appellate review.

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Dicks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 9, 2001
287 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Dicks

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC, RESPONDENT, v. JEFFREY DICKS, APPELLANT. (Ind. No…

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

Date published: Oct 9, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
731 N.Y.S.2d 392

Citing Cases

People v. Vargas

The defendant was not aggrieved by the County Court's denial of his challenge to a juror for cause, since he…

People v. Vargas

However, the County Court's ruling that, if the defendant took the stand, the People could ask him about his…