Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

People v. Pain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 28, 2002

298 A.D.2d 604; 748 N.Y.S.2d 691; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10253

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Simmons (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Simmons (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Morales (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Middleton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Stephens (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Delgadillo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Pain (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

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, Kangs County (Knipel, J.), rendered June 15, 2000, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, burglary in the third degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the trial court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry of four allegedly unqualified jurors is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant did not request such an inquiry, and his two motions for a mistrial failed to *605specify that any of the jurors was “grossly unqualified to serve” (CPL 270.35 [1]; see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rodriguez, 71 NY2d 214, 218; People v Bunch, 278 AD2d 501, 502; People v Beniquez, 267 AD2d 316; People v Jackson, 209 AD2d 247, 247-248). In any event, it is clear from the record that at no time did any of the four jurors, including juror number three, express an inability to render an impartial verdict or to deliberate. Therefore, a mistrial and a consequent dismissal were not warranted (cf. People v Jones, 287 AD2d 339; People v Sipas, 246 AD2d 408; People v Huntley, 237 AD2d 533).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83). S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.