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. Victor FELICIANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered June 2, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror who had been a victim of several property crimes in the past. The prospective juror's crime victim status, standing alone, did not constitute actual bias and she did not express any doubt about her ability to be fair and impartial (see, People v. Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d 600, 709 N.Y.S.2d 134, 730 N.E.2d 932; People v. Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882, 883 884, 483 N.Y.S.2d 198, 472 N.E.2d 1026; compare, People v. Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d 358, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51, 753 N.E.2d 846, where juror had expressed such doubt). The juror's victimization occurred far in the past, involved different types of crimes than those charged against defendant, and, unlike such cases as People v. Logan, 277 A.D.2d 145, 717 N.Y.S.2d 549, did not appear to have had any emotional impact on the juror. Since she gave no indication of a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service in the first place, her repeated use of expressions such as “try to be fair” did not warrant disqualification.
Likewise, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror who stated, in response to voir dire by defense counsel, that “I think it is important to hear both sides of the story”. While a prospective juror's statement that it is “important to hear both sides” might appear to be an assertion of a defendant's obligation to present a defense, here, any ambiguity was immediately resolved when the juror, in his own words, demonstrated unequivocal knowledge of and acceptance of the principle that the People have the burden of proving a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while a defendant has no obligation to testify or present evidence. Defense counsel seems to have been satisfied by the prospective juror's response since he chose not to ask a follow-up question or ask the court to inquire further.
The procedure under which defendant was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender was not unconstitutional (see, People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, 728 N.Y.S.2d 407, 752 N.E.2d 844; Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350; compare, Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435).
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: July 05, 2001
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)