People v. Driver
| Decision Date | 25 October 2017 |
| Citation | 154 A.D.3d 958,64 N.Y.S.3d 222 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Alioune DRIVER, also known as Iloune Driver, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
154 A.D.3d 958
64 N.Y.S.3d 222
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Alioune DRIVER, also known as Iloune Driver, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct. 25, 2017.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered December 19, 2013, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree (three counts), reckless endangerment in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
On June 9, 2011, following a confrontation between two groups of young men on a boardwalk in Brighton Beach, shots were fired into a crowded area, striking several people and killing a 16–year–old girl. Witnesses identified a group of young men belonging to the Crips gang as having started the altercation.
Witnesses also saw two members of that group each pull a gun from their waistbands and begin firing. At trial, two witnesses identified the defendant as one of the shooters. A jury convicted the defendant of murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree (three counts relating to three separate victims), reckless endangerment in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court committed reversible error by depriving him of the number of peremptory challenges to which he was statutorily entitled. During the selection of the regular jurors, the defendant was afforded 20 peremptory challenges, which is the proper amount where, as here, the highest crime charged is a class A felony (see CPL 270.25 [2 ][a] ). He used only 10. After the jury was sworn, but prior to opening statements, one of the sworn jurors was discharged. When a sworn juror is discharged prior to deliberations, the Criminal Procedure Law directs the court to replace the discharged juror "by the alternate juror whose name was first drawn and called" ( CPL 270.35[1] ). Here, at the urging of both parties, the court instead allowed the parties to select a juror from a new panel of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Faulk
...consented to the seating of those prospective jurors (see People v. Arevalo, 168 A.D.3d 1091, 1091, 90 N.Y.S.3d 912 ; People v. Driver, 154 A.D.3d 958, 959, 64 N.Y.S.3d 222 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the seating of those jurors did not constitute a mode of proceedings error ......
-
Driver v. Coveny
...claims that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct and the court erred in taking the verdict were unpreserved for appellate review. Id. at 223-24. Moreover, the Appellate Division concluded that the was not excessive. Id. at 224. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. Peop......
-
People v. Lamb, 2014–00036
...is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Alfaro , 66 N.Y.2d 985, 987, 499 N.Y.S.2d 378, 489 N.E.2d 1280 ; People v. Driver , 154 A.D.3d 958, 960, 61 N.Y.S.3d 921 ). In any event, the verdict is not repugnant (see People v. Campbell , 208 A.D.2d 641, 642–643, 617 N.Y.S.2d 195 ; see......
-
People v. Danon
...v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985, 987, 499 N.Y.S.2d 378, 489 N.E.2d 1280 ; People v. Brown, 164 A.D.3d 695, 79 N.Y.S.3d 568 ; People v. Driver, 154 A.D.3d 958, 960, 64 N.Y.S.3d 222 ). In any event, the contention is without merit. LEVENTHAL, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., ...