From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jorge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 17, 2005
23 A.D.3d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

7102.

November 17, 2005.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered February 11, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Laura R. Johnson, The Legal Aid Society, New York (David Crow of counsel), and Davis Polk Wardwell, New York (L. Reid Skibell of counsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (David Rong of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ., concur.


Defendant claims that the court should have made a more thorough inquiry of a juror who closed his eyes at points during the summation by codefendant's counsel and the court's charge and who was being elbowed by a juror in the next seat. This claim is waived and unpreserved. Defendant's counsel sought no such inquiry, took the position that the juror was not sleeping, and agreed that the juror should not be discharged ( see People v. Farmer, 295 AD2d 290, lv denied 98 NY2d 768). We reject defendant's arguments on the preservation issue, and we decline to reach defendant's claim in the interest of justice. Were we to reach this claim, we would find that the record amply supports the conclusion that the juror was not sleeping. The juror denied that he had been sleeping on the one occasion the court addressed him on the subject; with respect to this and the other occasions on which his eyes were closed, the court, the prosecutor, the codefendant's counsel and defendant's counsel all agreed that the juror had not been sleeping. Accordingly, there is no basis to conclude that the court was required to make further inquiry ( see e.g. People v. Sanabria, 266 AD2d 41, lv denied 94 NY2d 884; People v. Cruz, 225 AD2d 325, lv denied 88 NY2d 965; People v Ferguson, 165 AD2d 789, lv denied 77 NY2d 838).


Summaries of

People v. Jorge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 17, 2005
23 A.D.3d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

People v. Jorge

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. VICTOR JORGE, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 17, 2005

Citations

23 A.D.3d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8823
805 N.Y.S.2d 46

Citing Cases

People v. Thomas

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improvidently…

People v. Thomas

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to…