THE PEOPLE & C., RESPONDENT, v. JOSE ALVAREZ, APPELLANT.
86 N.Y.2d 761, 655 N.E.2d 171, 631 N.Y.S.2d 130
July 6, 1995
1 No. 288 SSM 34 (1995 NY Int. 187)
Decided July 6, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Karen M. Kalikow, for Appellant.
Submitted by Lisa Ellen Mudd, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. After a jury
trial, defendant was convicted of criminal possession and sale of a
controlled substance in the third degree. On appeal, defendant
challenged the court's Allen charge to the jury as being improper. The
Appellate Division rejected defendant' s challenge to the charge.
The record indicates that the Allen charge when taken as a whole was
proper. The initial charge stressed the importance of reaching a
verdict without forcing any juror to yield a conscientious belief
(see, People v Ali, 65 AD2d 513, 514, affd 47 NY2d 920). While noting
the jurors must accommodate inconsistencies in what other jurors may
urge and attempt to reconcile the testimony, the court urged the
jurors to "stick to (their) guns" if they believed in the
"righteousness" of their positions. M oreover, any lack of clarity
that could have arisen from the initial charge was dispelled by the
court's supplemental instruction.
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order
affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone,
Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Decided July 6, 1995
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE & C., RESPONDENT, v. JOSE ALVAREZ, APPELLANT.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of criminal possession and sale of a controlled
defendant challenged the court's Allen charge to the jury as being improper.
The Appellate Division rejected defendant' s challenge to the charge.
The initial charge stressed the importance of reaching a verdict without forcing any juror to
While noting the jurors must accommodate inconsistencies in what other jurors may urge and
M oreover, any lack of clarity that could have arisen from the initial charge was dispelled
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
|
