Opinion
2011-11-10
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Desiree R. BAKER, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.), rendered
June 22, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert B. Hallborg, Jr., of Counsel), for defendant-appellant.Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Kristi M. Ahlstrom of Counsel), for respondent.MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon a jury verdict of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[3] ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02[1] ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime of robbery in the first degree as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict with respect to that count is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, we conclude that County Court properly denied her challenge for cause to a prospective juror. “ It is well settled that ‘a prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the [prospective] juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial’ ” ( People v. Odum, 67 A.D.3d 1465, 1465, 890 N.Y.S.2d 241, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 804, 899 N.Y.S.2d 138, 925 N.E.2d 942, 15 N.Y.3d 755, 906 N.Y.S.2d 828, 933 N.E.2d 227, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 326, 178 L.Ed.2d 212, quoting People v. Chambers, 97 N.Y.2d 417, 419, 740 N.Y.S.2d 291, 766 N.E.2d 953; see also People v. Semper, 276 A.D.2d 263, 714 N.Y.S.2d 12, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 738, 722 N.Y.S.2d 806, 745 N.E.2d 1029). Even assuming, arguendo, that “the initial statements of the prospective juror raised a serious doubt regarding his ability to be impartial, we conclude that the prospective juror ultimately stated unequivocally that he could be fair” ( People v. Brown, 26 A.D.3d 885, 886, 807 N.Y.S.2d 779, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 846, 816 N.Y.S.2d 752, 849 N.E.2d 975; see Chambers, 97 N.Y.2d at 419, 740 N.Y.S.2d 291, 766 N.E.2d 953).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, GORSKI, and MARTOCHE, JJ., concur.