Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John GATHERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Lee Price, J.), rendered September 17, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 1/212 to 13 1/212 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's contention that the trial court did not provide a meaningful response to a jury note is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that, after considering the note it received from a dissenting juror about allegedly belligerent conduct by other jurors, as well as a collective note from the other jurors that disputed the lone juror's claims, the court properly determined that supplemental instructions would be sufficient and that further inquiry was unnecessary (see People v. Cochran, 302 A.D.2d 276, 755 N.Y.S.2d 388 [2003], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 653, 760 N.Y.S.2d 117, 790 N.E.2d 291 [2003]; see also People v. Sampson, 201 A.D.2d 314, 607 N.Y.S.2d 290 [1994], lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 971, 616 N.Y.S.2d 24, 639 N.E.2d 764 [1994]; compare People v. Lavender, 117 A.D.2d 253, 502 N.Y.S.2d 439 [1986], appeal dismissed 68 N.Y.2d 995, 510 N.Y.S.2d 565, 503 N.E.2d 121 [1986] ). Moreover, after the court's thorough instructions, jury deliberations continued without further incident, and there is no reason to believe that the ultimate unanimous verdict was the result of coercion.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 21, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)