People v. Woodard

• Decision Date: 28 April 2023
• Docket Number: 169 KA 17-00339
• Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 02207
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. DERRICK WOODARD, ALSO KNOWN AS "WOOD," DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2023 NY Slip Op 02207

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
DERRICK WOODARD, ALSO KNOWN AS "WOOD," DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

No. 169 KA 17-00339

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

April 28, 2023

MARK D. FUNK, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KATHLEEN P. REARDON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JODI A. DANZIG OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered January 25, 2017. The appeal was held by this Court by order entered November 12, 2021, decision was reserved and the matter was remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings (199 A.D.3d 1377 [4th Dept 2021]). The proceedings were held and completed.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In this prosecution arising from an investigation into a multi-level drug sales operation, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a joint jury trial with three codefendants, of conspiracy in the second degree (Penal Law § 105.15), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39 [1]), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]). We previously held the case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing on defendant's motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (2) on the ground of misconduct during jury deliberations, which had been summarily denied by the court, and we also rejected defendant's remaining contentions (People v Woodard, 199 A.D.3d 1377 [4th Dept 2021]). Defendant's motion was supported by sworn allegations, including the affidavits of two jurors, indicating that certain other jurors may have had undisclosed preexisting prejudices against people of defendant's race that may have affected defendant's substantial right to an impartial jury and fair trial (id. at 1380). Upon remittal, the court conducted a hearing during which all 12 jurors testified, and thereafter denied the motion.

As relevant here, a court may, upon a motion of the defendant, set aside the verdict on the ground "[t]hat during the trial there occurred, out of the presence of the court, improper conduct by a juror,... which may have affected a substantial right of the defendant and which was not known to the defendant...