From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Byrd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 1995
214 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

April 3, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The prosecutor's conduct upon cross-examination of the defendant, while improper (see, People v Parks, 120 A.D.2d 920, 921; People v Williams, 112 A.D.2d 177; People v Ochoa, 86 A.D.2d 637), did not serve to deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial. Thus, reversal is not warranted based on the prosecutor's conduct (see, People v Williams, supra).

The defendant contends that his conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree must be reversed, and that count dismissed, since it was a lesser-included offense of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, for which he was also convicted. This contention is without merit. Possession offenses relating to controlled substances are not lesser-included offenses of those crimes prohibiting their sale (see, People v Burton, 104 A.D.2d 655, 656).

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in questioning a juror who expressed doubts as to her ability to remain fair and told the court that she felt sympathy for the defendant. A trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on the issue of juror prejudice (see, People v Genovese, 10 N.Y.2d 478). Where a court determines, after reasonable inquiry, that a juror will cast aside any preconceived notion, impression, or opinion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused and render a verdict based solely upon the evidence presented at trial, that juror may be considered impartial and fit for service (see, Irvin v Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723; see also, People v Genovese, 10 N.Y.2d 478, 481-482, supra). The court's inquiry was reasonable to ensure that the juror was impartial and fit for service.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Pizzuto, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Byrd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 1995
214 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Byrd

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM BYRD, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 3, 1995

Citations

214 A.D.2d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
625 N.Y.S.2d 68

Citing Cases

People v. Velez

After replacing the discharged juror with an alternate, the court admonished the jurors to avoid any media…

People v. Singh

The trial court properly denied the defendant's challenge of a prospective juror for cause. Although the…