People v. Russell
| Decision Date | 29 November 2001 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ROBERT J. RUSSELL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lahtinen, J Defendant was indicted by a Grand Jury for the crime of driving while intoxicated as a felony and three traffic infractions resulting from his operation of a motor vehicle on Interstate Route 90 in Schenectady County on July 13, 1999. Convicted of all charges after a jury trial, defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 1/3 to 7 years and a $2,000 fine for his driving while intoxicated conviction and concurrent 15-day jail sentences for his traffic infraction convictions. Defendant now appeals.
Turning first to defendant's claim that County Court committed reversible error by failing to uphold the defense's challenge for cause for a certain juror, we find that, under the circumstances presented, the court's ruling was not reversible error. CPL 270.20 (2) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "An erroneous ruling by the court denying a challenge for cause by the defendant does not constitute reversible error unless the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time or, if he has not, he peremptorily challenges such prospective juror and his peremptory challenges are exhausted before the selection of the jury is complete."
Defendant was indicted for a class D felony (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]), entitling him to 10 peremptory challenges during the selection of regular jurors and two challenges for each alternate juror (see, CPL 270.25 [2] [c]). The record reveals that at the point that defendant challenged the juror at issue for cause, he had only exercised seven of his 10 peremptory challenges and did not exhaust all 10 of those challenges when jury selection was completed. Were we to find County Court's denial of defendant's challenge for cause erroneous, it is not reversible error (see, People v Lynch, 95 NY2d 243, 248; People v De La Cruz, 223 AD2d 472, 473, lv denied 88 NY2d 846; People v Dehler, 216 AD2d 643, lv denied 86 NY2d 734), as defendant had an opportunity at trial to rectify any harm from the allegedly erroneous ruling (see, People v Lynch, supra, at 248). Consequently, we reject defendant's claim of error.
Defendant also claims that his conviction must be reversed because, during jury selection, one of the prospective jurors seated in the jury box indicated that she knew a prospective defense witness and stated, in the presence of the other prospective jurors, "I don't believe anything he's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Colburn
...N.Y.S.2d 691, 738 N.E.2d 1172 [2000] ; People v. Culhane, 33 N.Y.2d 90, 97, 350 N.Y.S.2d 381, 305 N.E.2d 469 [1973] ; People v. Russell, 288 A.D.2d 759, 760, 733 N.Y.S.2d 292 [2001] ). The anomaly here is that defendant did not join in the People's challenge for cause and, although his pere......
-
People v. Colburn
...N.Y.S.2d 691, 738 N.E.2d 1172 [2000]; People v. Culhane, 33 N.Y.2d 90, 97, 350 N.Y.S.2d 381, 305 N.E.2d 469 [1973]; People v. Russell, 288 A.D.2d 759, 760, 733 N.Y.S.2d 292 [2001] ). The anomaly here is that defendant did not join in the People's challenge for cause and, although his peremp......
- People v. COLLINS, III
- People v. WILLIAMS, JR.