People v. Fernandez
Decision Date | 03 June 1993 |
Citation | 81 N.Y.2d 1023,616 N.E.2d 497,599 N.Y.S.2d 911 |
Parties | , 616 N.E.2d 497 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Teofilio FERNANDEZ, Appellant. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Steven Statsinger, Susan Allee and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. of New York County, New York City (Myles L. Orosco, Mark Dwyer and Carol A. Remer-Smith, of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant claims that the trial court violated CPL 310.10 by permitting one or more jurors to attend church services during the lunch recess after the trial had entered the deliberations phase. When trial counsel learned what occurred, she moved for a mistrial, raising two objections: that she should have been consulted beforehand and that the jurors' request should have been in writing. The court denied the motion, defendant was convicted, and the Appellate Division affirmed, 183 A.D.2d 605, 586 N.Y.S.2d 246.
CPL 310.10 provides that once deliberations have commenced, the jury "must be continuously kept together under the supervision of a court officer or court officers." Under the predecessor statute, * we held that the court has discretion to permit separation of jurors so long as the jurors remain supervised (see, People v. Dunbar Contr. Co., 215 N.Y. 416, 426, 109 N.E. 554 [Cardozo, J.]. We see no reason to construe the present statute differently, inasmuch as it is similar insofar as relevant here and no legislative intent to overrule our construction of the prior statute has been called to our attention.
Defendant argues that the "supervision" requirement was violated. We agree with the Appellate Division, however, that in the absence of evidence, or even an allegation, that the churchgoing jurors were unsupervised, defendant has failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating a violation of CPL 310.10.
SMITH, J., taking no part.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
* Code of Criminal Procedure § 421 provided: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Hannigan
...786; People v. Weinberg, 586 N.Y.S.2d 131, 183 A.D.2d 930; People v. Fernandez, 586 N.Y.S.2d 246, 183 A.D.2d 605, affd 81 N.Y.2d 1023, 599 N.Y.S.2d 911, 616 N.E.2d 497). Moreover, because no serious deprivation of constitutional rights occurred in this case (cf., People v. Castillo, 80 N.Y.......
-
People v. Anderson
...member (see, People v. Scott, 182 A.D.2d 649, 582 N.Y.S.2d 238) or for any member to be unsupervised (see, People v. Fernandez, 81 N.Y.2d 1023, 599 N.Y.S.2d 911, 616 N.E.2d 497; People v. Coons, 75 N.Y.2d 796, 552 N.Y.S.2d 94, 551 N.E.2d 587). However, not every misstep by the jury requires......
-
People v. Leon
...juror had gone to and from the hospital unsupervised by court officers or other appropriate court personnel (People v. Fernandez, 81 N.Y.2d 1023, 599 N.Y.S.2d 911, 616 N.E.2d 497), we find no basis to conclude that there was any violation of CPL ...
-
People v. Speed
...that under CPL 310.10 separation of jurors is permissible "so long as the jurors remain supervised" (People v. Fernandez, 81 N.Y.2d 1023, 1024, 599 N.Y.S.2d 911, 616 N.E.2d 497). Here, upon questioning by the court, the juror stated that he was alone in the restroom. Further, no deliberatio......