TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Darlene L.

The People of the State of New York v. Darlene L.

People v. Darlene L., 116 A.D.2d 1029 (1986)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 24, 1986
Citations
116 A.D.2d 1029498 N.Y.S.2d 6451986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51812

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Adjudication unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of third degree assault (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]) as a result of a fight in which the complainant was cut by a piece of glass. Defendant’s primary claim is that the trial court should not have interviewed, in the absence of defense counsel, a juror who appeared to be sleeping during defense counsel’s cross-examination.

The procedure for disqualification of a juror midtrial does not require the Trial Judge to inform counsel concerning the possibility that a juror may be "grossly unqualified” to serve (CPL 270.35). Although the better course is to hold a hearing in the presence of counsel (see, Smith v Phillips, 455 US 209, 215-218 ; People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 437 ; cf. People v Argibay, 57 AD2d 520 , affd 45 NY2d 45, 52-53 ), it is not reversible error for a court to explore the juror’s qualifications in chambers (see, People v Ivery, 96 AD2d 712 ), even if done in the absence of counsel (see, United States v Berger, 433 F2d 680, 686, cert denied 401 US 962 , reh denied 402 US 925 ; People v Rentz, 120 Mise 2d 165, 176-177, affd for reasons stated below 105 AD2d 920 ). Here, the court met with counsel and had the record of the meeting with the juror read back. Moreover, defendant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice *1030 resulting from the court’s substitution of an alternate juror to which her counsel consented.

Defendant also claims the trial court erred by receiving in evidence a piece of broken glass found on the floor of the tavern in the area where the incident occurred. There is no merit to this claim. The record establishes a proper chain of custody (see, People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340 ). Moreover, the glass was offered and received only for the limited value that it was found near the scene of the crime. Under these circumstances, the court’s evidentiary ruling was not reversible error. We have considered defendant’s remaining claims and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from adjudication of Herkimer County Court, Bergin, J. — youthful offender.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1989: 119892026peak 1989 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Bailey146 A.D.2d 788 (1989)

Most recent

  1. People v. Bailey146 A.D.2d 788 (1989)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) 3,105
People v. Ciaccio, 391 N.E.2d 1347 (N.Y. 1979) 202
People v. Argibay, 379 N.E.2d 191 (N.Y. 1978) 171
People v. Ivery, 96 A.D.2d 712 (1983) 28
People v. Argibay, 57 A.D.2d 520 (1977) 8
People v. Rentz, 105 A.D.2d 920 (1984) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list