Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Clevester Hemphill, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-02-10
Citations: 147 A.D.3d 476
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clevester Hemphill, Appellant.
Judges: Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 147
Pages: 476–477

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clevester Hemphill, Appellant.
[48 NYS3d 21]

Opinion:
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Wayne M. Ozzi, J., at jury trial and sentencing; Neil Ross, J., at resentenc-ing), rendered July 12, 2010, as amended July 9, 2015, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to concurrent terms of 7V2 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility.
Review of defendant's claim that the court improp granted a challenge for cause by the People is statute foreclosed because the People did not exhaust their peremptory challenges (see CPL 270.20 [2]). Although the People init: used up their challenges, they subsequently withdrew or e of them, and thus the court's ruling, even if erroneous, did not give the People an extra challenge. In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in disqualifying a panelist 3rly rily ally who failed to give an unequivocal assurance that she could render an impartial verdict, uninfluenced by knowledge or expertise derived from her studies (see generally People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 363 [2001]; see also People v Culhane, 33 NY2d 90, 108 n 3 [1973]).
The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a provident exercise of discretion (see People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). With reasonable limitations, the court permitted inquiry into matters that were probative of credibility.
Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.