People v. Eley
| Decision Date | 09 June 1986 |
| Citation | 121 A.D.2d 462,503 N.Y.S.2d 423 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Douglas ELEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Ellen J. Stein, of counsel), for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Rosalyn H. Richter and Raymond R. Granger, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and RUBIN, LAWRENCE and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), rendered June 7, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, and grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court coerced the jury into reaching a verdict through an unbalanced supplemental charge. After approximately two- and one-half hours of deliberation without reaching a verdict, a note was received which indicated that the jury would be unable to reach a unanimous decision. The trial court then gave a supplemental, or so-called "Allen " charge (see, Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528). After additional deliberations of about three hours, the jury returned its verdict. The supplemental instructions were essentially neutral, were directed at the jurors in general, and did not coerce the jurors to reach a certain verdict, or any verdict (see, People v. Page, 47 N.Y.2d 968, 970, 419 N.Y.S.2d 958, 393 N.E.2d 1031, cert. denied 444 U.S. 936, 100 S.Ct. 285, 62 L.Ed.2d 195; People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299; People v. Hardy, 109 A.D.2d 802, 486 N.Y.S.2d 314). We have considered the defendant's other contention and find it to be without merit (see, People v. Shaw, 112 A.D.2d 958, 492 N.Y.S.2d 470).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Zocchi
...appropriate under the circumstances (see, People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, 727, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299; People v. Eley, 121 A.D.2d 462, 503 N.Y.S.2d 423, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 769, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1053, 498 N.E.2d 155; People v. Lee, 118 A.D.2d 593, 594, 499 N.Y.S.2d 198, lv. denied 67......
-
People v. Bowen
...to reach a certain verdict, or any verdict (see, People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299; People v. Eley, 121 A.D.2d 462, 503 N.Y.S.2d 423; lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 769, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1053, 498 N.E.2d 155; People v. Hardy, 109 A.D.2d 802, 486 N.Y.S.2d 314). Moreover, it ......
-
People v. Fleury
...directed at the jurors in general, and did not coerce the jurors to reach a verdict or to achieve a specific result (People v. Eley, 121 A.D.2d 462, 503 N.Y.S.2d 423; People v. Curtin, 115 A.D.2d 753, 496 N.Y.S.2d 779). Nor did the instructions urge that a dissenting juror abandon his own c......
-
People v. Brooks
...at the jurors in general, and were not coercive (see, People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299; People v. Eley, 121 A.D.2d 462, 503 N.Y.S.2d 423). Although two Allen charges were given, that was not, in and of itself, improper because the important considerations for......