AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. MICHAEL STURDIVANT, appellant.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).

Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30(2) on the ground of juror misconduct. The defendant failed to establish that the jurors conducted an experiment not within the common ken of juror experience and knowledge concerning a material issue in the case, or that they in fact conducted an experiment ( see People v. McMillan, 197 A.D.2d 476, 477; cf. People v. Maragh, 94 N.Y.2d 569, 574; People v. Stanley, 87 N.Y.2d 1000, 1001-1002).

SMITH, J.P., KRAUSMAN, CRANE and MASTRO, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. STURDIVANT
(Apr 26, 2004)