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. Lydell WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Roger S. Hayes, J.), rendered June 29, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4 1/212 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror who stated unequivocally that his extensive law enforcement background and connections would have no effect on his ability to be impartial (see People v. Brown, 26 A.D.3d 885, 807 N.Y.S.2d 779 [2006], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 846, 816 N.Y.S.2d 752, 849 N.E.2d 975 [2006]; People v. Lopez, 7 A.D.3d 350, 775 N.Y.S.2d 861 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 708, 785 N.Y.S.2d 36, 818 N.E.2d 678 [2004] ). The court, which saw and heard the panelist, credited his assurances, and there is no basis for disturbing its determination.
The court responded meaningfully (see People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 131, 476 N.Y.S.2d 95, 464 N.E.2d 463 [1984]; People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 301-302, 449 N.Y.S.2d 168, 434 N.E.2d 237 [1982], cert. denied 459 U.S. 847, 103 S.Ct. 104, 74 L.Ed.2d 93 [1982] ) to the jury's inquiries as to whether defendant could be found guilty if he was “involved in the sale in a way that is different than the testimony presented,” when it refused to give a one-word negative answer, which would have been inadequate, and it instead instructed the jury on the applicable principles of law. The court repeatedly warned the jury to base its verdict solely on the evidence, and not to engage in speculation (see People v. Wilkins, 16 A.D.3d 217, 790 N.Y.S.2d 666 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 796, 801 N.Y.S.2d 817, 835 N.E.2d 677 [2005] ). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments on this issue.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 21, 2006
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)