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. Luis PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered January 5, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/212 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court's refusal to permit defendant to call a witness was not reversible error because defendant's offer of proof did not establish the relevance of the witness's prospective testimony (People v. Arroyo, 77 N.Y.2d 947, 570 N.Y.S.2d 481, 573 N.E.2d 569). The proffered testimony concerned collateral matters, and, to the extent that it may have corroborated defendant's testimony, it likewise did so only as to collateral matters. In any event, any error in prospectively precluding such testimony would have been harmless because such testimony could not have affected the verdict.
Defendant failed to preserve his claim that, after polling the jurors as to their guilty verdict on the third-degree possession count, the court should have proceeded to poll them as to their purported guilty verdict on the seventh-degree possession count, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that there was no reason to further poll the jurors. The purported verdict was merely a verdict sheet entry, and thus did not constitute a duly rendered verdict (see, People v. McBride, 203 A.D.2d 86, 610 N.Y.S.2d 481, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 969, 616 N.Y.S.2d 22, 639 N.E.2d 762). Moreover, such verdict would have been contrary to the court's instructions to consider the counts in the alternative, and a verdict of guilty of the lesser included offense would have been necessarily included within the higher count.
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: February 20, 1997
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)