People v. Dunkley
| Decision Date | 11 January 1993 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Alfred DUNKLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Stephen J. Pittari, White Plains (Jacqueline F. Oliva, of counsel), for appellant.
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Diane E. Selker and Richard E. Weill, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and MILLER, RITTER and PIZZUTO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), rendered March 15, 1991, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The testimony at trial established that the defendant, a juvenile offender, shot and killed the decedent, who had a history of harassing the defendant. The defendant admitted to the police that he had shot the decedent, but claimed that the gun went off while the two were struggling for the gun. However, the forensic evidence established that the decedent was at least three feet from the gun when he was shot.
The defendant maintains that the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to dismiss for cause three jurors. Specifically, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss a juror who had worked in the District Attorney's office with the prosecutor eight years prior to trial. However, since she had left the District Attorney's office she only had a nodding acquaintance with the prosecutor. Therefore, it cannot be said that this juror's relationship with the prosecutor would preclude her from rendering an impartial verdict (see, People v. Provenzano, 50 N.Y.2d 420, 429 N.Y.S.2d 562, 407 N.E.2d 408).
The defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's failure to dismiss for cause a second juror, since the prosecutor exercised a preemptory challenge and that juror was excused.
Nor do we find that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss for cause a third juror. Although this juror expressed concern regarding her absence from work, she stated that she would not lose pay, be fired, or be demoted as the result of her jury service. Further, this juror twice responded negatively to the inquiry as to whether there was any reason she should not sit on the jury, and stated that she felt comfortable sitting on the case. Therefore, in light of her answers as a whole, it cannot be said that her response of "I hope...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...589 [3d Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 776, 907 N.Y.S.2d 464, 933 N.E.2d 1057 [2010] ; see CPL 270.20 [2] ; People v. Dunkley , 189 A.D.2d 776, 777, 592 N.Y.S.2d 401 [2d Dept. 1993], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884, 597 N.Y.S.2d 946, 613 N.E.2d 978 [1993] ). With respect to defendant's for-cause ......
-
People v. Dehler
... ... Provenzano, 50 N.Y.2d 420, 424-425, 429 N.Y.S.2d 562, 407 N.E.2d 408, with People v. Branch, 46 N.Y.2d 645, 651, 415 N.Y.S.2d 985, 389 N.E.2d 467; see also, People v. Dunkley, 189 A.D.2d 776, 592 N.Y.S.2d 401, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 884, 597 N.Y.S.2d 946, 613 N.E.2d 978). Nor was the prospective juror's security-related employment and consequent relationship with the police sufficient to prevent him from being impartial (see, People v. Ruiz, 162 A.D.2d 637, 638, 556 ... ...
-
People v. Sumpter
... ... Therefore, actual bias was not established, inasmuch as it is well settled that a mere general relationship between a prospective juror and law enforcement personnel will not sustain a claim of actual bias (see, People v. Adams, 222 A.D.2d 1124, 635 N.Y.S.2d 906; People v. Dunkley, 189 A.D.2d 776, 592 N.Y.S.2d 401) ... The defendant currently contends that the prospective juror actually expressed bias in favor of the police during voir dire, although he did not advance this specific claim in the trial court. In any event, the record again fails to support ... ...
-
People v. Smith
...juror" (People v Molano, 70 A.D.3d 1172, 1174 n 1 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 776 [2010]; see CPL 270.20 [2]; People v Dunkley, 189 A.D.2d 776, 777 [2d Dept 1993], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884 [1993]). With respect to defendant's for-cause challenge to prospective juror number 15, defend......