People v. Shedrick
| Decision Date | 26 December 1985 |
| Citation | 489 N.E.2d 1290,499 N.Y.S.2d 388,66 N.Y.2d 1015 |
| Parties | , 489 N.E.2d 1290 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert SHEDRICK, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wanda SHEDRICK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
In each case, 104 A.D.2d 263, 482 N.Y.S.2d 939 and 106 A.D.2d 895, 483 N.Y.S.2d 497, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendants each contend that the selection of grand and petit jurors in Steuben County from a cross section of one of three "jury districts", rather than from the county-at-large, constituted a violation of Judiciary Law article 16.
In 1904, the Steuben County Board of Supervisors divided the county into three jury districts pursuant to legislation explicitly providing the board with such powers. (See, L.1892, ch. 686, § 12[14]; L.1902, ch. 119.) In 1942, the enabling legislation was repealed, but no provision was made for the abolition of those already existing jury districts which had been lawfully created under the former law. (See, L.1942, ch. 799, § 20; see generally, People v. Wood, Steuben County Ct, Sept. 18, 1979 [Purple, J.].) Indeed, absent clear reference in the 1942 legislation to existing jury districts, explicit or implied, and absent necessary conflict between that legislation and the continued existence of those districts, their legitimacy will not be deemed to have been affected or impaired. (See, General Construction Law § 93; McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 1, Statutes § 391; cf. People v. Johnson, 110 N.Y. 134, 140, 17 N.E. 684.)
Likewise, subsequently enacted provisions of the Judiciary Law, upon which defendants specifically rely, did not invalidate Steuben County's continued use of its lawfully created jury districts. Judiciary Law article 16, enacted in 1977, requires that "grand and petit juries [be] selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community in the county or other governmental subdivision wherein the court convenes". ( § 500 [emphasis added].) There is no unequivocal requirement that juries be drawn from a pool of residents from throughout the entire county wherein the court convenes and, moreover, there is no provision in any section of article 16 clearly expressing or implying a legislative mandate that any existing jury district system, previously established pursuant to prior legislation, be abolished. (See, e.g., §§ 506, 514, which require that jurors be drawn from lists of qualified individuals residing in the county, but do not unambiguously mandate that the lists be countywide.)
Further, neither defendant has demonstrated that the grand or petit jurors were selected from a group unrepresentative of a fair cross-section of the community, or that a particular segment of the community was deliberately excluded. Hence, there is no merit to their respective constitutional claims. (See, People v. Guzman, 60 N.Y.2d 403, 409-410, 469 N.Y.S.2d 916, 457 N.E.2d 1143, cert. denied 466 U.S. 951, 104 S.Ct. 2155, 80 L.Ed.2d 541; People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 42-43, 390 N.Y.S.2d 848, 359 N.E.2d 358.)
[2, 3] Additionally, in People v. Shedrick (Robert), it cannot be said that the People's prime witness was incredible as a matter of law and, therefore, it was for the jury to determine whether to believe or disbelieve his testimony. (People v. Buchalter, 289 N.Y. 181, 201, 45 N.E.2d 225; People v. Cohen, 223 N.Y. 406, 423, 119 N.E. 886.) Nor was it reversible error for the court to exclude results of a polygraph examination offered by defendant to indicate his own belief in his innocence. The reliability of the polygraph has not been demonstrated with sufficient certainty to be admissible in this State. (People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Mendes
...State v. Pusch, 77 N.D. 860, 46 N.W.2d 508 (1950); State v. LaForest, 106 N.H. 159, 207 A.2d 429 (1965); People v. Shedrick, 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388, 489 N.E.2d 1290 (1985); State v. Dery, 545 A.2d 1014 (R.I.1988); State v. Pressley, 290 S.C. 251, 349 S.E.2d 403 (1986); State v. Mu......
-
Whitley v. Ercole
...645 (3d Dep't 1997) ( quoting People v. Shedrick 104 A.D.2d 263, 274, 482 N.Y.S.2d 939 (4th Dep't 1984), aff'd 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388, 489 N.E.2d 1290 (1985)), a trial judge has the authority to keep from the jury testimony that is incredible as a matter of law. See Fiddler v. N.Y......
-
People v. Mastin
...the polygraph evidence (see, People v. Angelo, 88 N.Y.2d 217, 223, 644 N.Y.S.2d 460, 666 N.E.2d 1333; People v. Shedrick, 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 1018, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388, 489 N.E.2d 1290, rearg. denied 67 N.Y.2d 758, 500 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 490 N.E.2d The court erred in precluding cross-examination of a ......
-
People v. Jones
...claim of actual innocence based upon the results of a polygraph examination did not warrant a hearing]; see generally People v. Shedrick, 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 1018 [1985] [“The reliability of the polygraph has not been demonstrated with sufficient certainty to be admissible in this State”] ). Fu......
-
Expert witnesses
...including the party against whom the test is ofered. People v. Angelo , 88 N.Y.2d 217, 644 N.Y.S.2d 460 (1996); People v. Shedrick , 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388 (1985). An expert opinion based on personal training and experience is not subject to a Frye analysis. Doviak v. Finkelstein ......
-
Expert witnesses
...including the party against whom the test is ofered. People v. Angelo , 88 N.Y.2d 217, 644 N.Y.S.2d 460 (1996); People v. Shedrick , 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388 (1985). An expert opinion based on personal training and experience is not subject to a Frye analysis. Doviak v. Finkelstein ......
-
Expert witnesses
...including the party against whom the test is offered. People v. Angelo , 88 N.Y.2d 217, 644 N.Y.S.2d 460 (1996); People v. Shedrick , 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388 (1985). An expert opinion based on personal training and experience is not subject to a Frye analysis. Doviak v. Finkelstein......
-
Expert witnesses
...including the party against whom the test is offered. People v. Angelo , 88 N.Y.2d 217, 644 N.Y.S.2d 460 (1996); People v. Shedrick , 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388 (1985). Trial Judge as Gatekeeper under Daubert and General Electric In 1993, the Unites States Supreme Court held that the ......