Wiley v. Couzens
| Decision Date | 20 November 1975 |
| Citation | 38 N.Y.2d 731,381 N.Y.S.2d 39 |
| Parties | , 343 N.E.2d 757 In the Matter of Thomas WILEY, Appellant, v. John C. COUZENS, as a Judge of the County Court of the County of Westchester, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Arthur H. Grae, White Plains and Keogh & Keogh, New Rochelle, for appellant.
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty. (Stephen C. Unsino, White Plains, of counsel), for respondents.
On the facts of this case we cannot say that the Trial Judge abused his discretion by accepting the partial verdict and discharging the jury when he did. (CPL 310.60, subd. 1, par. (a); see, also, United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 579, 580, 6 L.Ed. 165; Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 93 S.Ct. 1066, 35 L.Ed.2d 425.) The jury reported the deadlock on the attempted murder count after deliberating for over five hours and, in response to the court's inquiry, the foreman stated that the situation would remain unchanged if deliberations were continued for another day. When the court indicated its intention to accept a partial verdict and discharge the jury, neither side objected. The decision then was left to the court's discretion, and the court did not abuse it. Thus the double jeopardy clause poses no bar to retrial on the unresolved charge (United States v. Perez, supra).
Judgment affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watkins v. Bennett
...was no double jeopardy violation in appeal No. 1 with respect to the retrial of the unresolved charges (see Matter of Wiley v. Couzens, 38 N.Y.2d 731, 381 N.Y.S.2d 39, 343 N.E.2d 757)."101 The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the......
-
Matter of Baim v. Eidens
...of which would bar any challenge to a retrial on double jeopardy grounds (see, People v Ferguson, 67 N.Y.2d 383, 387-388; Matter of Wiley v Couzens, 38 N.Y.2d 731). We also note that no claim has been made in this proceeding that County Court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial on......
-
Harris v. Justices of Supreme Court, Kings County
...it cannot be said that, in granting the motion, the court abused its discretion as a matter of law (Matter of Wiley v. Couzens, 38 N.Y.2d 731, 381 N.Y.S.2d 39, 343 N.E.2d 757). BREITEL, C. J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE, JJ., concur in Judgment affirmed, with......