Summary
noting also "that the court repeatedly reminded the jury that such deliberations are not permitted"
Summary of this case from Joaquin v. CapraOpinion
04-05-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anibal JOAQUIN, Defendant–Appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Katheryne M. Martone of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Melanie A. Sarver of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Katheryne M. Martone of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Melanie A. Sarver of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (James M. Kindler, J.), rendered May 23, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to conduct an inquiry into whether jurors had engaged in premature deliberations, and we note that the court repeatedly reminded the jury that such deliberations are not permitted (see People v. Mejias, 21 N.Y.3d 73, 79, 966 N.Y.S.2d 764, 989 N.E.2d 26 [2013] ). The application for an inquiry was based on two jurors' alleged body language, which was observed by defense counsel but not the court, and from which the inference of premature deliberations was speculative in any event. The particular portion of the prosecutor's summation to which defendant objected on the ground of “denigrating the defense” was generally responsive to defendant's summation, and does not warrant reversal. Defendant's remaining challenges to the prosecutor's summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we similarly find no basis for reversal (see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 666 N.Y.S.2d 572 [1st Dept.1997], lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 976, 672 N.Y.S.2d 855, 695 N.E.2d 724 [1998]; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118–119, 591 N.Y.S.2d 1001 [1st Dept.1992], lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 884, 597 N.Y.S.2d 945, 613 N.E.2d 977 [1993] ). Any improprieties were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, RICHTER, GISCHE, GESMER, JJ., concur.