Summary
In People v Charkow (142 AD2d 734 [1988]) the defendant in a criminal case claimed that his conviction should be overturned because the jury was not shielded from his "off the books" business practices. He claimed that the trial court should have barred the District Attorney from asking him about this.
Summary of this case from WILLIAM ST v. ANNE MTOpinion
July 25, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court did not commit reversible error when it instructed the jury as to the need for a unanimous verdict. Nor was it error for the court to have indicated that the verdict must be based upon the true personal belief of each individual juror rather than a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of the other jurors (see, People v. Ali, 47 N.Y.2d 920).
We further find that the trial court did not unduly restrict the jury's right to have testimony read back, by suggesting that it would be "helpful" if the request for a readback of testimony was limited to relevant portions of the testimony which might aid the jury in its deliberations (see, People v. Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, rearg denied 51 N.Y.2d 770, cert denied 449 U.S. 1087).
Equally unavailing is the defendant's assertion that the prosecutor improperly questioned him, upon cross-examination, with regard to a prior bad act. Firstly, the defendant failed to request a Sandoval hearing prior to trial (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Secondly, the defendant withdrew his objection to this line of inquiry; therefore, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, we find that the cross-examination of the defendant regarding his failure to pay taxes and his practice of paying employees "off the books" was appropriate and relevant for impeachment purposes since this information demonstrated the defendant's willingness to place his interests ahead of those of society (see, People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, mot to amend remittitur granted 36 N.Y.2d 857, cert denied 423 U.S. 861).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or devoid of merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.