Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

People v. Hayes

People v. Hayes, 222 A.D.2d 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 1995)

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1995-12-14
Topic
general

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Sheridan, J.), rendered August 5, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years, and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed. Defendant’s claim that the jury’s verdict should not have been accepted without inquiry when a juror showed great reluctance to enter the courtroom for the rendition of the *293verdict is unpreserved as a matter of law (see, People v Albert, 85 NY2d 851, affg 206 AD2d 320), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that nothing in the juror’s behavior suggested duress. Nothing more was required after the court polled each juror to determine if the guilty verdict was unanimous and the juror in question responded twice that he had voted to convict (see, People v Maddox, 139 AD2d 597, 598, lv denied 72 NY2d 862; compare, People v Pickett, 61 NY2d 773). Concur — Ellerin, J.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Hayes. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Sheridan, J.), rendered August 5, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years, and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the jury’s verdict should not have been accepted without inquiry when a juror showed great reluctance to enter the courtroom for the rendition of the *293 verdict is unpreserved as a matter of law (see, People v Albert, 85 NY2d 851, affg 206 AD2d 320), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that nothing in the juror’s behavior suggested duress. Nothing more was required after the court polled each juror to determine if the guilty verdict was unanimous and the juror in question responded twice that he had voted to convict (see, People v Maddox, 139 AD2d 597, 598, lv denied 72 NY2d 862; compare, People v Pickett, 61 NY2d 773). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.