People v. Gonzalez
| Citation | 527 N.Y.S.2d 855,140 A.D.2d 369 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Carlos GONZALEZ, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 02 May 1988 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Earle F. Weprin, New York City, for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Janet M. Berk and Robin A. Forshaw, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BROWN, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, SPATT and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered October 4, 1984, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Although the People's case rested entirely upon circumstantial evidence, it is clear from the record that the hypothesis of guilt flowed naturally from the facts proven and excluded to a moral certainty every conclusion other than guilt ( see, People v. Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196, 417 N.Y.S.2d 452, 391 N.E.2d 288, rearg. dismissed 48 N.Y.2d 635, 421 N.Y.S.2d 198, 396 N.E.2d 480). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15[5] ).
There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for a mistrial, which was predicated upon the jury's inability to reach a verdict on only the second day of its deliberations, especially in view of the fact that much of the jury's time was taken up by the rereading of testimony and the court's answering of certain questions. Furthermore, the supplemental instructions delivered by the court after the jury had reported it was deadlocked were neutral and noncoercive ( see, People v. Adorno, 124 A.D.2d 588, 507 N.Y.S.2d 733, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 708, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 504 N.E.2d 401; People v. Curtin, 115 A.D.2d 753, 496 N.Y.S.2d 779, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 760, 500 N.Y.S.2d 1032, 491 N.E.2d 289).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive, and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Oldham
...supported granting a mistrial after only two notes were received relating to an impasse in deliberations. (See , People v. Gonzalez , 140 A.D.2d 369, 527 N.Y.S.2d 855 [2d Dept. 1988], app denied 72 N.Y.2d 912, 532 N.Y.S.2d 761, 528 N.E.2d 1234 [1988] ).Accordingly, Defendant's motion is den......
-
People v. Anderson
...deliberated for three days and sent at least three deadlock notes, there were various requests for readbacks (see, People v. Gonzalez, 140 A.D.2d 369, 370, 527 N.Y.S.2d 855) and deliberations had to begin anew on the second day of deliberations when a juror was replaced by an alternate juro......
-
People v. Gonzalez
...532 N.Y.S.2d 761 72 N.Y.2d 912, 528 N.E.2d 1234 People v. Gonzalez (Carlos) COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK JUL 01, 1988 Kaye, J. --- A.D.2d ----, 527 N.Y.S.2d 855 App.Div. 2, Kings Denied ...