People v. Fleury
| Decision Date | 04 November 1991 |
| Citation | 575 N.Y.S.2d 713,177 A.D.2d 504 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Peter FLEURY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Martin M. Lucente, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Gary Fidel and Merri Turk Lasky, of counsel; Nora A. Colangelo, on the brief), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, EIBER and MILLER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.), rendered August 18, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court, faced with an apparently deadlocked jury, failed to deliver a properly balanced Allen charge (see, Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528), in that it failed to expressly stress that no juror should abandon his or her conscientiously held opinions simply so that a verdict could be reached. The record reveals, however, that the supplemental instructions rendered in this case were essentially neutral, were 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 conviction and join in the opinion of other jurors or shame the jury into reaching a verdict (People v. Hardy, 109 A.D.2d 802, 486 N.Y.S.2d 314; see, People v. Gomez, 149 A.D.2d 432, 539 N.Y.S.2d 776; People v. Zocchi, 133 A.D.2d 478, 519 N.Y.S.2d 690).
In light of the overall balanced nature of the charge, the court's remark that this was not a difficult case, did not render the charge coercive (see, People v. Boyd, 150 A.D.2d 786, 787, 542 N.Y.S.2d 35; cf., People v. Rodriguez, 70 N.Y.2d 523, 532, 522 N.Y.S.2d 842, 517 N.E.2d 520).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Shannon, 2013-11109
...to compel the jurors to agree upon a particular result (see People v. Kinard, 215 A.D.2d 591, 626 N.Y.S.2d 858 ; People v. Fleury, 177 A.D.2d 504, 575 N.Y.S.2d 713 ; People v. Austin, 168 A.D.2d 502, 562 N.Y.S.2d 745 ).The defendant's contention that the prosecutor made improper comments du......
-
People v. Santiago
...v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299; People v. Bastien, 180 A.D.2d 691, 692, 580 N.Y.S.2d 54; People v. Fleury, 177 A.D.2d 504, 575 N.Y.S.2d 713; see also, People v. Antommarchi, supra, 80 N.Y.2d at 247, 590 N.Y.S.2d 33, 604 N.E.2d The defendant's remaining contentions......
-
People v. Ramirez
...People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299; People v. Bastien, 180 A.D.2d 691, 580 N.Y.S.2d 54; People v. Fleury, 177 A.D.2d 504, 575 N.Y.S.2d 713; People v. Austin, 168 A.D.2d 502, 562 N.Y.S.2d 745). JOY, ALTMAN and FLORIO, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J.P., dissents and vot......
-
People v. Arnold
...the jurors to reach a verdict or to achieve a specific result (see, People v. Odome, 192 A.D.2d 726, 596 N.Y.S.2d 853; People v. Fleury, 177 A.D.2d 504, 575 N.Y.S.2d 713; People v. Brooks, 152 A.D.2d 591, 543 N.Y.S.2d We agree with the defendant that the prosecutor misstated the law during ......