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, etc., respondent, v. Jeffrey BROWN, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered August 20, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, criminal trespass in the third degree, petit larceny, and possession of burglar's tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by an impartial jury because of a juror's alleged introduction of extraneous information into the jury's deliberations is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant fully acquiesced in the court's remedial action of individually questioning each member of the jury panel about his or her ability to remain impartial by failing to interpose a further objection, renew his mistrial motion, or otherwise again raise the present contention that he was deprived of a fair trial (see People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 620 N.Y.S.2d 814, 644 N.E.2d 1370; cf. People v. Albert, 85 N.Y.2d 851, 623 N.Y.S.2d 848, 647 N.E.2d 1356). In any event, after conducting a probing and thorough examination of each juror regarding the comments, the court determined that none of the jurors had been prejudiced and that the ability of the jurors to be fair and impartial had not been compromised by the conversations they either had or heard (see People v. Simon, 224 A.D.2d 458, 638 N.Y.S.2d 113; People v. Pollard, 150 A.D.2d 397, 540 N.Y.S.2d 829; People v. Castillo, 144 A.D.2d 376, 534 N.Y.S.2d 188). Accordingly, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial (see People v. Simon, supra; People v. Castillo, supra; People v. Pollard, supra at 398, 540 N.Y.S.2d 829).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
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: September 19, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)