People v. Smith
| Citation | 59 N.Y.2d 988,453 N.E.2d 1079,466 N.Y.S.2d 662 |
| Parties | , 453 N.E.2d 1079 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Renard SMITH, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 05 July 1983 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. 87 A.D.2d 357, 451 N.Y.S.2d 429.
We agree with both the trial court and the Appellate Division majority that the juror's conduct did not rise to the level of the "conscious, contrived experimentation" found to be misconduct in People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388, 394, 423 N.Y.S.2d 461, 399 N.E.2d 51. Rather, the juror's evaluation of the ability to observe the interior of an automobile through its rear window, made while walking to dinner between deliberations and again while riding in a bus with jurors to the hotel after being sequestered, is properly classified as an everyday experience and, therefore, not misconduct (see, generally, United States ex rel. Owen v. McMann, 435 F.2d 813, 817-818, cert. den. 402 U.S. 906, 91 S.Ct. 1373, 28 L.Ed.2d 646).
The better practice is for a Trial Judge, presented with evidence of such action by a juror to hold a hearing in order to ascertain exactly what transpired, rather than to rely upon attorneys' affidavits concerning what the juror said he did (cf. People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388, 392, 423 N.Y.S.2d 461, 399 N.E.2d 51, supra; State v. Graham, 422 So.2d 123 [La.], app. dsmd. sub nom. Graham v. Louisiana, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2419, 77 L.Ed.2d 1309).
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Horney
... ... It has long been a general rule in New York that jurors may not impeach their verdicts by affidavit or testimony. (People v. DeLucia, 15 N.Y.2d 294, 296, 258 N.Y.S.2d 377, 206 N.E.2d 324 People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388, 423 N.Y.S.2d 461, 399 N.E.2d 51 People v. Smith, 87 A.D.2d 357, 451 N.Y.S.2d 429 affd. 59 N.Y.2d 988, 466 N.Y.S.2d 662, 453 N.E.2d 1079 The rule serves to enforce several public policies. It is based on the assumption that the sealing of jurors' lips guarantees finality of jury verdicts as well as protection of the jury from post-trial ... ...
-
State v. Fair
... ... Finkelstein, the degree of minimization and spot monitoring ... depended on the content of the call as well as the people ... involved in the call and the regularity with which they ... discussed criminal activity. In particular, Finkelstein ... 'entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial ... court.'" State v. Smith , 224 N.J. 36, 47 ... (2016) (quoting State v. Harvey , 151 N.J. 117, 205 ... (1997)). "To address a motion for a mistrial, trial ... ...
-
People v. Horney
... ... At this point the Court correctly directed that a hearing be held to ascertain what actually transpired. (People v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 988, 466 N.Y.S.2d 662, 453 N.E.2d 1079). At the hearing all twelve jurors and three alternates testified extensively. The testimony of the other jurors contradicted in the main the allegations made by the dissatisfied juror (Juror # 2) and accorded minimal significance to those of his ... ...
-
People v. Martin
... ... We disagree ... The juror's prior familiarity with the neighborhood where the crime occurred cannot be equated with a juror's "conscious, contrived experimentation" (People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388, 394, 423 N.Y.S.2d 461, 399 N.E.2d 51; People v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 988, 990, 466 N.Y.S.2d 662, 453 N.E.2d 1079), a deliberate effort to add to or clarify the evidence presented at trial (People v. Mann, 125 A.D.2d 711, 510 N.Y.S.2d 196, lv. denied, 69 N.Y.2d 748, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1052, 505 N.E.2d 250, lv. denied on reconsideration, 69 N.Y.2d 952, 516 ... ...
-
23.4 - 1. Motion To Set Aside Verdict
...888, 493 N.Y.S.2d 302 (1985); People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695, 485 N.Y.S.2d 519 (1984).[3268] . CPL § 330.30(2); see People v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 988, 466 N.Y.S.2d 662 (1983) (discussing the level of misconduct required and suggesting that the trial court should hold a hearing “to ascerta......