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. JAMES TUCKER, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1] ) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (§ 220.06[5] ). We note that the certificate of conviction incorrectly reflects that defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree under Penal Law § 220.06(1), and it must therefore be amended to reflect that he was convicted under Penal Law § 220.06(5) (see generally People v. Anderson, 79 AD3d 1738, 1739, lv denied 16 NY3d 856). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).
We agree with defendant, however, that Supreme Court erred in summarily denying his motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30(2). The sworn allegations in defendant's moving papers, i.e., that he learned after the verdict was rendered that a juror who had allegedly been “holding out” contacted defendant's aunt between the first and second days of deliberation and discussed the likelihood of a guilty verdict when the jury reconvened the following morning, “required a hearing on the issue whether the juror's alleged misconduct prejudiced a substantial right of defendant” (People v. Saxton, 32 AD3d 1286, 1287; see People v. Paulick, 206 A.D.2d 895, 896; see generally People v. Clark, 81 N.Y.2d 913, 914). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to conduct a hearing on defendant's CPL 330.30 motion.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: KA 11–00291
Decided: May 09, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)