Opinion
November 16, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to object to the charge as given, defendant failed to preserve for review his contention that the jury should have been instructed that the People had to prove defendant's knowledge of the weight of the controlled substance, and we decline to review the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, People v Ivey, 204 A.D.2d 16; see also, People v. Young, 209 A.D.2d 996 [decided herewith]; People v. Mammarello, 209 A.D.2d 999 [decided herewith]). By failing to object to the prosecutor's redirect examination of Jerome Gatson on the ground that prejudicial evidence of uncharged crimes was not admissible, defendant failed to preserve that contention for review (see, People v. Clarke, 81 N.Y.2d 777, 778). We decline to reverse as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. Although the prosecutor's redirect examination was far too extensive to be justified under the "`opening the door'" theory (People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 452), the erroneous admission of the testimony is harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (cf., People v. Melendez, supra, at 453). The trial court determined, after "a probing and tactful inquiry" (People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 299), that a juror who had expressed reservations about continuing to serve was not grossly unqualified and that her statements had not affected the remaining jurors. That determination by the court on the issue of juror bias is entitled to great weight (see, People v Rodriguez, 71 N.Y.2d 214, 219), and we find no basis in the record to disturb it. We have reviewed the remaining contention raised by defendant and conclude that it is lacking in merit.