People v. Maldonado

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Jose

    31 A.D.3d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    The defendant's current contention that a juror was incompetent, unable to perceive information accurately, and unfit to serve, is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). The defendant failed to alert the trial court to his specific claims ( see People v Gray, supra at 19; People v Wall, 248 AD2d 650; People v Maldonado, 237 AD2d 463), and the trial court made no specific or express findings concerning those claims ( see CPL 470.05; cf. People v Edwards, 95 NY2d 486, 491; People v Parson, 282 AD2d 477, 478.]). In any event, there is no evidence in the record that the juror demonstrated incompetency or incapacity that called into question his ability to serve as a juror ( see generally People v Guzman, 76 NY2d 1, 5; People v Pagan, 191 AD2d 651; cf. People v Leader, 285 AD2d 823, 824), and render an impartial verdict ( People v Rodriguez, 100 NY2d 30, 34-36), or that a substantial right of the defendant was prejudiced ( see CPL 330.

  2. People v. Kisson

    23 A.D.3d 18 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 11 times
    In Kisoon, as in O'Rama, failure to read the note verbatim deprived counsel of the opportunity to accurately analyze the jury's deliberations and frame intelligent suggestions for the court's response.

    Accordingly, the defendant's argument that the trial court's actions deprived him of the assistance of counsel at a critical stage of the proceeding is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Cintron, 273 AD2d 84; People v. Neal, 268 AD2d 307). Furthermore, the court's response to the jury's note does not warrant reversal as the defendant was not prejudiced thereby ( see People v. Maldonado, 237 AD2d 463; People v. Tinner, 209 AD2d 457). Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

  3. People v. Francis

    262 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    The defendant's contention that the court erred when it reinstructed the jury on the elements of the crimes charged without reinstructing it on intoxication is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Stewart, 81 N.Y.2d 877, 878-879; People v. Maldonado, 237 A.D.2d 463). In any event, since the jury did not request reinstruction on intoxication, and, upon the court's recharge, the foreperson indicated that the jury was satisfied, the defendant's contention is without merit ( see, People v. Allen, 69 N.Y.2d 915). The Supreme Court's response to the jury's request was meaningful ( see, CPL 310.