People v. Marlett

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Jose Marlett's judgment of conviction for predatory sexual assault, kidnapping, and robbery. The court rejected challenges concerning the jury's rejection of his mental-disease-or-defect affirmative defense, limits and instructions during voir dire, alleged judicial bias, and the severity of his sentence.

Holdings

1. The jury's rejection of defendant's affirmative defense was not against the weight of the evidence.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the time allotted for voir dire because counsel was afforded a fair opportunity to question prospective jurors about relevant matters.
3. The trial court did not err by declining to give a specific preliminary instruction concerning defendant's affirmative defense during voir dire.
4. The claim was not reviewable because CPL 330.30(1) does not permit a defendant to expand the record with matters that did not appear in the record before the motion, and defendant failed to object when the alleged incidents occurred.
5. The trial court's conduct did not demonstrate bias or deprive defendant of a fair trial.
6. The sentence was not harsh or excessive and did not warrant modification in the interest of justice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the jury's rejection of defendant's affirmative defense of lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect was against the weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the trial court improperly restricted the time for voir dire, violating defendant's statutory and constitutional rights to meaningful participation in jury selection, an impartial jury, and due process.
3. Whether the trial court erred by failing to give prospective jurors a preliminary instruction concerning defendant's affirmative defense.
4. Whether the trial court properly denied defendant's CPL 330.30 motion to set aside the verdict based on alleged judicial bias.
5. Whether the trial court's conduct during trial deprived defendant of a fair trial.
6. Whether defendant's aggregate 110-years-to-life sentence was harsh and excessive.

Disposition

affirmed