People v. Huntley
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Bonds (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Daniels (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- People v. Wells (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- People v. Philips (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Philips (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Huntley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- People v. Pain (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- People v. Huntley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- People v. Tuzinowski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- People v. Cook (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- People v. Jenkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- People v. Jenkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered May 21, 1992, convicting him of murder in. the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain physical evidence.
The defendant’s contention that the inventory search of his vehicle was improper is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Dickens, 88 NY2d 1031; People v Williams, 217 AD2d 1007).
The trial court did not err in discharging a sworn juror over the defendant’s objection. The record demonstrates that the court properly engaged in a thorough and searching inquiry of the juror (see, People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290) and correctly discharged him as being "grossly unqualified” (CPL 270.35 [1]) based upon the juror’s statement that job-related concerns would prevent him from giving his undivided attention to the case and would imperil his ability to decide the matter in a fair and impartial manner (see, People v Rodriguez, 71 NY2d 214; People v White, 204 AD2d 750; People v Bolden, 197 AD2d 528).
The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.