Opinion
November 7, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on juror misconduct (see, People v. Castillo, 144 A.D.2d 376 [decided herewith]).
Moreover, we conclude that the trial court properly found that the statements made by some of the eyewitnesses to the police who came upon the crime scene while the robbery was still in progress qualified as excited utterances and therefore were admissible in evidence (see, People v. Brooks, 71 N.Y.2d 877; People v. Brown, 70 N.Y.2d 513). Furthermore, we reject the defendant's claim that these statements improperly bolstered the identification evidence provided by the eyewitnesses. In any event, the statements did not add any appreciable weight to the prosecution's case, and the evidence of the defendant's guilt, including the identification of the defendant as one of the robbers by nine eyewitnesses, was overwhelming (see, People v. Trinidad, 124 A.D.2d 485, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 750). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.