People v. Hardy
| Decision Date | 11 March 1985 |
| Citation | 486 N.Y.S.2d 314,109 A.D.2d 802 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Bernard HARDY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David Pomerantz, Garden City, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Seymour Roth, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.
Before O'CONNOR, J.P., and RUBIN, LAWRENCE and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 30, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant argues that the trial court coerced the jury into reaching a verdict. After approximately seven hours of deliberation, without a verdict, the jury foreman reported that he believed the jury would remain unable to reach a decision. The trial court then gave the jury a so-called "Allen " charge, urging the importance of the jury reaching a verdict. Such a charge is proper provided it does not urge that (1) a dissenting juror abandon his own conviction and join in the opinion of other jurors, (2) attempt to coerce or compel the jury to agree upon a particular verdict (People v. Faber, 199 N.Y. 256, 92 N.E. 674), or (3) shame the jury into reaching a verdict (People v. Josey, 19 A.D.2d 660, 241 N.Y.S.2d 620; see People v. Randall, 9 N.Y.2d 413, 214 N.Y.S.2d 417, 174 N.E.2d 507; People v. Sharff, 45 A.D.2d 666, 360 N.Y.S.2d 671, affd. 38 N.Y.2d 751, 381 N.Y.S.2d 48, 343 N.E.2d 765; 1 Charges to Jury Crim Case [rev ed] § 2.38; 1 CJI [NY] 42.60, at 1019). The charge at bar was free of these errors. Moreover, "[i]t is well established that the determination of how long a disagreeing jury will be kept together and required to continue their deliberation is a matter of sound judicial discretion which, in the absence of abuse, will not be disturbed" (People v. Presley, 22 A.D.2d 151, 154, 254 N.Y.S.2d 400, affd. 16 N.Y.2d 738, 262 N.Y.S.2d 113, 209 N.E.2d 729).
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ramirez
...to coerce or compel the jury to agree upon a particular verdict, or (3) shame the jury into reaching a verdict" (People v. Hardy, 109 A.D.2d 802, 486 N.Y.S.2d 314 [citations omitted]; see also, People v. Perdomo, 204 A.D.2d 358, 611 N.Y.S.2d 560; People v. Bastien, 180 A.D.2d 691, 580 N.Y.S......
-
People v. Eske
...People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299; People v. Bowen, 134 A.D.2d 356, 520 N.Y.S.2d 834; People v. Hardy, 109 A.D.2d 802, 486 N.Y.S.2d 314). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 4......
-
People v. Eley
...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,......
- People v. Frange