Opinion
December 5, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven Barrett, J.).
In this murder prosecution where this court, on a prior appeal, reversed defendant's conviction and required submission on a new trial of manslaughter in the first degree, as a lesser included offense ( 127 A.D.2d 485), the jury deliberated a total of four days before reaching its verdict. The defendant's present claim that the trial court improperly coerced it into reaching a verdict is not preserved as there was no specific objection at trial on this ground to the supplemental instructions. (CPL 470.05.) In any event, the claim is without merit. There is nothing in the instructions which could be construed as being impermissibly coercive. (People v Blanchard, 105 A.D.2d 492, 493-494.) Nor, in the circumstances, did the court err in refusing to dismiss a pregnant juror because of her complaint of some pain on the final day of deliberations.
Finally, we are not persuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction", we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305.)
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ.