People v. Hicks
| Decision Date | 20 December 2005 |
| Citation | 843 N.E.2d 1136,6 N.Y.3d 737 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tyrone HICKS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was charged with rape in the first degree and related crimes stemming from a sexual assault perpetrated against a female victim. During deliberations, the trial judge received a note from the jury foreperson asking to speak to the judge. When questioned in court, the foreperson explained that the jury had a concern that one of its members "should be excused from the jury for the simple fact that she said, on an occasion she was forced — forcibly raped by her boyfriend or [fiancé] at the time." Supreme Court queried the juror who allegedly claimed to have been raped, and in response to the prosecutor's request for more specific inquiry, the court recalled the juror for further questioning. During that colloquy, the following exchange occurred:
The trial judge found that the juror was not grossly unqualified to serve and later declined to grant defendant's request for a mistrial. Upon further deliberation, the jury convicted defendant of attempted rape in the first degree and attempted sodomy in the first degree. The court denied defendant's subsequent motion to set aside the verdict and sentenced defendant as a second felony offender to an aggregate term of eight years' imprisonment. The Appellate Division affirmed and a Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal.
Supreme Court properly denied defendant's mistrial motion. The juror unequivocally declared that she had never been raped and stated that she could render an impartial verdict. Defendant argued that the juror could not be "accepted at her word" and therefore had provided misleading responses during jury selection that disqualified her for service. The colloquy, however, failed to convince the court that the juror was not truthful and, as such, we cannot say that the court erred in concluding that the juror was not grossly unqualified to serve. To the extent defendant now claims that the juror should have been dismissed for engaging in "substantial misconduct" (see CPL 270.35[1]), this contention is not properly before us since it was not raised at trial.
Furthermore, we cannot address defendant's argument that Supreme Court failed to conduct a probing and tactful inquiry of the juror as required by People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 514 N.Y.S.2d 191, 506 N.E.2d 901 [1987]. Defendant neither informed the court that its questioning was insufficient or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breazil v. Artis
...the problem and thereby avert reversible error." People v. Luperon, 85 N.Y.2d 71, 78, 623 N.Y.S.2d 735 (1995); see also People v. Hicks, 6 N.Y.3d 737, 739, 810 N.Y.S.2d 396 (2005).8 A "general objection is not sufficient," because, as "New York's highest courts uniformly instruct," to prese......
-
725 Eatery Corp. v. City of N.Y., 02cv4431
...the 2001 Amendments could not be justified by reference to the 1995 Regulations. For the People Theatres of N.Y., 810 N.Y.S.2d 381, 843 N.E.2d at 1136.18 The trial court found the 2001 Amendments unconstitutional with respect to adult theatres and entered a permanent injunction. The City di......
-
People v. Paige
...Aybinder, 215 A.D.2d 181, 181, 626 N.Y.S.2d 150 ; People v. Cannady, 138 A.D.2d 616, 616–617, 526 N.Y.S.2d 202 ; see also People v. Hicks, 6 N.Y.3d 737, 739, 810 N.Y.S.2d 396, 843 N.E.2d 1136 ; Mikel v. Zon, 2007 WL 9225080, *18, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103479, *50 [W.D.N.Y., No. 04–CV–6448 (......
-
People v. Alexander M. W.
...discharge, he failed to preserve said contention by requesting that such an inquiry be conducted (see CPL 470.05 [2 ]; People v. Hicks, 6 N.Y.3d 737, 739, 810 N.Y.S.2d 396, 843 N.E.2d 1136 [2005] ; People v. Reichel, 110 A.D.3d 1356, 1358 n. 5, 975 N.Y.S.2d 470 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1......