People v. Riley
| Decision Date | 05 February 1987 |
| Citation | 127 A.D.2d 458,511 N.Y.S.2d 270 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas RILEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
J. P. Adolfsen and N. Barclay, New York City, for respondent.
B. L. Atlas, for defendant-appellant.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and CARRO, ASCH, MILONAS and ROSENBERGER, JJ.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford A. Scott, J.), rendered on February 5, 1985 convicting defendant, following a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to two concurrent prison terms of from seven and one-half years to fifteen years, is unanimously affirmed.
We have carefully considered the arguments raised by defendant on appeal and find that in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, reversal is not warranted. However, it should be noted that the court is troubled by the supplemental instruction delivered to the jury when it was announced that the jury was deadlocked following five hours of deliberation one afternoon and several hours the next morning. In that regard, the trial judge informed the members of the jury that there were "some poor judges here now" and that "[i]t's a simple matter"; emphasized the expense of trying the case; explained that if this jury failed to reach a verdict, another jury would have to be selected in the same manner, and there was no reason to believe that the second jury would be any more competent to decide the matter than the first; and stated that As the Court of Appeals has aptly held in People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, at 726-727, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299:
To be sure a Trial Judge "must not attempt to coerce or compel the jury to agree upon a particular verdict, or any verdict" (People v. Faber, 199 NY 256, 259 ). Supplemental charges which prod jurors through prejudicial innuendoes or coerce them with untoward pressure to reach an agreement will not be countenanced (e.g., People v. Carter, 40 NY2d 933, 934 [389 N.Y.S.2d 835, 358 N.E.2d 517]; People v. Sheldon, 156 NY 268, 282 ).
The supplemental charge at issue herein is not regarded with favor by this court since it is coercive and otherwise prejudicial. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pilotti v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Fac.
... ... He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty years to life. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction without opinion, People v. Pilotti, 93 A.D.2d 1005, 461 N.Y.S.2d 663 (1st Dep't 1983), and the New York State Court of Appeals denied Pilotti's application for leave to ... ...
-
People v. Riley
...and the Appellate Division affirmed, stating, "in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, reversal is not warranted". (127 A.D.2d 458, 511 N.Y.S.2d 270.) II. PEOPLE v. Shortly after midnight on May 18, 1983, defendant Rodriguez and two others, Garcia and Laffman, hailed a taxicab in New......
-
People v. Huarotte
...a jury (see, People v. Ali, supra; People v. Cartagena, 78 A.D.2d 601, 432 N.Y.S.2d 176 (1st Dept.1980); and, People v. Riley, 127 A.D.2d 458, 511 N.Y.S.2d 270 (1st Dept.1987)). The Courts of this State have held Allen charges coercive, when such charges emphasize the expense involved in co......
-
People v. King
...will not be countenanced." ( See, also, People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523, 522 N.Y.S.2d 842, 517 N.E.2d 520, reversing People v. Riley, 127 A.D.2d 458, 511 N.Y.S.2d 270; People v. Demery, 60 A.D.2d 606, 400 N.Y.S.2d 135; People v. Josey, 19 A.D.2d 660, 241 N.Y.S.2d The above quoted parts of th......