From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Eley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 2006
35 A.D.3d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. 2005-02607 (Ind. No. 568/04).

December 5, 2006.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered March 9, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Thomas S. Burka of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Adams, J.P., Ritter, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to peremptorily challenge a prospective juror after the defendant had indicated his satisfaction with a venire panel and after the defendant had exercised his peremptory challenges to the panel ( see CPL 270.15; People v Mancuso, 22 NY2d 679, cert denied sub nom. Morganti v New York, 393 US 946; People v Lebron, 236 AD2d 423). The defendant's failure to object to the challenge when made, however, waived the rights secured to him under CPL 270.15 (2) ( see People v Mancuso, supra; People v Lebron, supra).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Eley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 2006
35 A.D.3d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Eley

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TYRON ELEY, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 5, 2006

Citations

35 A.D.3d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 9271
825 N.Y.S.2d 709

Citing Cases

People v. Ames

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to peremptorily challenge a…

People v. Smith

In any event, his contention is without merit since his objections to some of the challenged remarks were…