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. Raymond GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered September 8, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 7 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror who, despite some initial hesitation, unequivocally stated that her verdict would not be affected by her strong support of gun control (see, People v. Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882, 884-885, 483 N.Y.S.2d 198, 472 N.E.2d 1026).
Defense counsel expressly waived, on behalf of defendant, any objection to the court's granting the deliberating jury's request for permission to conduct a jury room demonstration involving dropping a pistol that had been received in evidence. We find the issues raised by defendant on appeal to be waivable and the waiver to be effective. Defendant's right to be present and right to have the trial conducted under the supervision of the court were not implicated because the demonstration was to be conducted by the jurors themselves as an adjunct to their deliberations, in which the court, counsel and defendant play no role (see, People v. Monroe, 90 N.Y.2d 982, 665 N.Y.S.2d 617, 688 N.E.2d 491). The silent presence of a court officer in the jury room for safety reasons during the demonstration itself was ministerial (see, People v. Bonaparte, 78 N.Y.2d 26, 571 N.Y.S.2d 421, 574 N.E.2d 1027). In any event, the experiment was appropriate. In this weapon possession case, the type of sound the weapon would make when dropped became an issue at trial. Accordingly, the court properly agreed to the jury's request for permission to drop the weapon on the floor. The demonstration was permissible because it involved the jurors' application of everyday experiences, perceptions and common sense (see, People v. Lennon, 223 A.D.2d 403, 636 N.Y.S.2d 334, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 1021, 644 N.Y.S.2d 155, 666 N.E.2d 1069; People v. Rivera, 215 A.D.2d 102, 626 N.Y.S.2d 93, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 801, 632 N.Y.S.2d 514, 656 N.E.2d 613; see also, People v. McMillan, 197 A.D.2d 476, 477, 602 N.Y.S.2d 847, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 927, 610 N.Y.S.2d 179, 632 N.E.2d 489).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: June 27, 2000
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)