From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sampson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 8, 1994
201 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

February 8, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.).


The trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial on the ground that alleged juror misconduct precluded "true deliberation". After being alerted to a spirited dispute between juror No. 3 and the jury foreperson, the court promptly ascertained that the exchange represented no more than a manifestation of "the heightened atmosphere in which the jury's decision-making process takes place" (People v. Redd, 164 A.D.2d 34, 37), and issued supplemental instructions that served to dissipate any hostility during deliberations and eliminate any likelihood of prejudice to the rights of defendant (People v. Castillo, 144 A.D.2d 376, 377, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 890, citing People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388, 394). Defendant's current claim that he was denied his right to a jury of 12 because the complaining juror was left out of some portion of the jury deliberations and merely acquiesced in the verdict is unsupported by the record, which indicates that each juror confirmed the verdict as his or hers during a subsequent jury poll.

Defendant's claim that the trial court's acting in concert charge did not appropriately convey to the jury that a guilty verdict required that all elements of each crime charged, including intent, be proved by the People beyond a reasonable doubt is belied by the record. In fact, the court repeatedly instructed the jury that the element of intent must be satisfactorily proved with respect to each defendant, and reminded the jury of all applicable definitions, including intent, when instructing that the People were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of each crime submitted.

We note that defendant was ineligible for youthful offender treatment as he was 19 years old at the time of the crimes charged (CPL 720.10), and we perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing (People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Sampson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 8, 1994
201 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Sampson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DONOVAN SAMPSON…

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

Date published: Feb 8, 1994

Citations

201 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
607 N.Y.S.2d 290

Citing Cases

People v. Schlosser

As the People correctly argue, there was no indication of juror misconduct, deprivation of a substantial…

People v. Ochoa

See People v. Gathers, 10 AD3d 537 (1st Dept. 2004), lv. denied, 3 NY3d 740 (2004). Indeed, in People v.…