Legal Opinion

People v. Serrano

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 8, 2006PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by calling 44 people for simultaneous voir dire questioning.

Defendant was arrested during a buy-and-bust operation in June 2001 for selling heroin. He was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). At the start of jury selection, the trial court called 44 individuals for simultaneous questioning, placing 12 in the jury box and the others in four front rows of the courtroom. The defense attorney objected to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. CamachoNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
  2. People v. CamachoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  3. People v. Ass'n of Trade Waste Removers of Greater New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  4. People v. SerranoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  5. People v. CampbellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. GonzalezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  2. People v. McLeodAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024
  3. People v. McLeodAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API