Summary
concluding that some jurors who briefly observed a criminal defendant in handcuffs during the court's lunch recess was, by itself, insufficient to deny the defendant a fair trial
Summary of this case from Ballard ex rel. Mount Olive Corr. Ctr. v. MecklingOpinion
Argued March 30, 1979
Decided June 12, 1979
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, ARNOLD G. FRAIMAN, J.
Barbara B. Butler and William E. Hellerstein for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Richard Hamburger and Jerrold L. Neugarten of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order appealed from should be affirmed. We find no merit to defendant's contention that he was denied due process of law when the trial court denied his motion for a mistrial made upon the ground that he had been unduly prejudiced when two jurors inadvertently viewed him in handcuffs while returning from lunch recess. The brief and, without question, inadvertent viewing of defendant by these jurors was, by itself, insufficient to deny defendant a fair trial (compare Dupont v Hall, 555 F.2d 15, with People v Roman, 35 N.Y.2d 978). Furthermore, defense counsel declined an express invitation by the Trial Judge to deliver a curative instruction, and did not request the substitution of alternate jurors or an examination into the effect of the encounter.
We also reject defendant's claim that his conviction of the fifth count of the indictment, accusing him of burglary in the first degree, cannot be sustained because the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant and his accomplices caused physical injury to their victim while "effecting entry" into his dwelling (see Penal Law, § 140.30, subd 2). Our examination of the trial record persuades us that the People did indeed meet their burden of proof on this point.
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER and FUCHSBERG concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.