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. Gregory WYNDER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered January 12, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of life without parole, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's contentions regarding the court's sua sponte dismissal of a large number of prospective jurors are unpreserved since he failed to object at a time when the court could have corrected the claimed error (see People v. Hopkins, 76 N.Y.2d 872, 560 N.Y.S.2d 982, 561 N.E.2d 882 [1990] ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court properly excused these panelists based on its own questioning that revealed that they were unqualified, and we would conclude that additional inquiry by counsel was unnecessary (see e.g. People v. Boozer, 298 A.D.2d 261, 748 N.Y.S.2d 379 [2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 555, 754 N.Y.S.2d 207, 784 N.E.2d 80 [2002]; People v. Gayle, 238 A.D.2d 133, 655 N.Y.S.2d 513 [1997], lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 893, 662 N.Y.S.2d 436, 685 N.E.2d 217 [1997]; People v. Mitchell, 224 A.D.2d 316, 637 N.Y.S.2d 733 [1996], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 968, 647 N.Y.S.2d 722, 670 N.E.2d 1354 [1996] ).
The court properly received evidence that defendant was on parole at the time of the crime and stopped reporting to his parole officer immediately thereafter, since this evidence was relevant to his consciousness of guilt. The court also properly admitted another reference to defendant's parole situation that provided necessary context for a statement he made that tended to establish his intent to rob the victim. This evidence remained probative of contested issues at trial, notwithstanding defendant's concessions with regard to some aspects of the case. To the extent that the court received unnecessary detail about defendant's parole situation, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ).
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 14, 2007
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)