People v. Monroe
| Decision Date | 02 December 1996 |
| Citation | 234 A.D.2d 320,651 N.Y.S.2d 536 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Victor MONROE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City, (Susan E. Kriete, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Monique Ferrell, of counsel), for respondent.
Before O'BRIEN, J.P., and COPERTINO, SANTUCCI and LUCIANO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered May 9, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
At various points in the defendant's trial, which ran over the course of approximately three weeks, the jury was permitted to examine exhibits which had been received in evidence. The examinations took place in the jury room without judicial supervision and in the absence of the defendant and the attorneys for both the prosecution and the defense. On appeal, the defendant contends that the jury's examination of the exhibits under such circumstances constituted reversible error. We disagree.
The defendant did not initially object to and, in effect, acquiesced in the procedure followed by the court. When the defendant eventually objected to the procedure at the end of the second week of the trial, the court ceased the practice. The defendant's belated claim that he was prejudiced because he was unable to observe the jurors as they examined the exhibits is purely speculative, particularly in light of the precise instructions given by the court to the effect that the jurors were not to deliberate upon or discuss the evidence. There is no indication in the record that the defendant's ability to defend against the charges was in any way affected by the court's actions (see, Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-106, 54 S.Ct. 330, 332, 78 L.Ed. 674; People v. Ciaccio, 47 N.Y.2d 431, 436, 418 N.Y.S.2d 371, 391 N.E.2d 1347; see also, People v. Arca, 72 A.D.2d 205, 424 N.Y.S.2d 569).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monroe v. Kuhlman
...that Monroe "did not initially object to, and in effect, acquiesced in the procedure followed by the court." People v. Monroe, 234 A.D.2d 320, 651 N.Y.S.2d 536 (2d Dept. 1996). The court further reached the merits of the claim finding that Monroe's "belated claim that he was prejudiced" by ......
-
Monroe v. Kuhlman
...petitioner "did not initially object to, and in effect acquiesced in the procedure followed by the court." People v. Monroe, 234 A.D.2d 320, 320, 651 N.Y.S.2d 536, 537 (2d Dept. 1996). It held that petitioner's "belated claim that he was prejudiced" by the trial court's actions was "purely ......
- People v. Moore
-
People v. Monroe
...895 655 N.Y.S.2d 895 89 N.Y.2d 944, 678 N.E.2d 508 People v. Victor Monroe Court of Appeals of New York Jan 27, 1997 Titone, J. 234 A.D.2d 320, 651 N.Y.S.2d 536 App.Div. 2, Kings Granted. ...