Opinion
October 28, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that in light of the surrounding circumstances, the inculpatory statements made by the defendant after approximately 1-1/2 hours of questioning were voluntary (see, People v Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35; People v. Cote, 164 A.D.2d 919; People v McAvoy, 142 A.D.2d 605). Moreover, although the record is unclear as to whether the defendant made a previous request for counsel in connection with unrelated charges pending in the State of Maryland, such a request would not have precluded him from waiving his right to counsel with respect to the New York homicide charges (see, People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331; People v. Cote, supra). Accordingly, the New York City detectives were entitled to question the defendant after he voluntarily waived his right to counsel following the administration of the Miranda warnings (see, People v. Bing, supra; People v. Cote, supra).
We also reject the defendant's contention that his statutorily and constitutionally-protected right to be present during the process of impaneling the jury (see, People v. Ciaccio, 47 N.Y.2d 431; People v. Mullen, 44 N.Y.2d 1) was violated because a discussion concerning certain prospective jurors took place at the bench and because challenges were conveyed to the Trial Judge outside the courtroom (cf., People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469; People v. Ganett, 68 A.D.2d 81, affd 51 N.Y.2d 991). It is clear that the defendant had a meaningful voice in the selection of the jury (see, People v. Ramos, 173 A.D.2d 748), and that he was "sufficiently present" to satisfy statutory and constitutional requirements (see, United States v. Chrisco, 493 F.2d 232, 236, cert denied 419 U.S. 847; cf., People v. Velasco, supra).
The defendant's contention that the verdict sheet submitted to the jury was not proper is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to object to its submission (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Hallums, 157 A.D.2d 800, 801; People v. Gray, 154 A.D.2d 478, 481; People v. Lugo, 150 A.D.2d 502; People v. Weatherly, 144 A.D.2d 509, 510; cf., People v. Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830; People v. Testaverde, 143 A.D.2d 208). Moreover, reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted because the defendant consented to the submission of the verdict sheet (see, People v. Weatherly, supra, at 510; cf., People v. Testaverde, supra, at 209, 211-212). Kunzeman, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.