People v. Clarke

Decision Date31 December 1990
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael CLARKE, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, Rochester (Michael L. Marsh and Frank Amoroso, of counsel), for appellant.

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Stephanie Schwartz, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KOOPER, MILLER and RITTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kellam, J.), rendered November 12, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, he was not denied his constitutional and statutory right to a jury in whose selection he had a voice. The record reveals that prior to the completion of jury selection, a sworn juror was discharged because he had disregarded the court's admonitions by speaking to the Assistant District Attorney involved in the case. Noting on the record that the juror had proven himself incapable of following the most basic of its instructions, the court discharged the juror. Under these circumstances, the court permissibly exercised its discretion pursuant to CPL 270.15(3) in determining that the juror's conduct constituted grounds justifying his discharge.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Cook
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 1 September 1994
    ...an incident will not be overturned without a showing of a prejudicial abuse of discretion by the court"); People v. Clarke, 168 A.D.2d 686, 564 N.Y.S.2d 184, 184 (N.Y.App.Div.1990) (dismissal of juror for speaking with attorney in case was proper exercise of court's discretion); Hopkins, 50......
  • People v. Radtke
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 28 October 1992
    ...the most simple and basic instructions, given to safeguard and ensure defendant's right to a fair trial (cf., People v. Clarke, 168 A.D.2d 686, 687, 564 N.Y.S.2d 184; see also, People v. Berrios, 177 A.D.2d 493, 494, 575 N.Y.S.2d Accordingly, applying the statutory standard, Juror No. 12 sh......
  • Bartolomeo v. Evangel Church of God
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 14 January 1991
  • People v. Carey
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 31 December 1990
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT