Opinion
9200 9201 Ind. 305/13
05-02-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond MAYRANT, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (John Vang of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Cynthia A. Carlson of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (John Vang of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Cynthia A. Carlson of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Manzanet–Daniels, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alvin M. Yearwood, J.), rendered January 5, 2016, as amended February 11, 2016, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 25 years to life and 25 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly granted the People's challenge for cause to a prospective juror. This issue turns on whether certain clearly disqualifying statements made by a panelist not identified in the record were, in fact, made by the panelist who was the subject of the challenge. The voir dire record, viewed as a whole, supports the inference that it was the panelist in question who made these statements. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in excusing the panelist for cause, because her answers cast "serious doubt on [her] ability to render an impartial verdict" ( People v. Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d 358, 363, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51, 753 N.E.2d 846 [2001] ).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The surviving victim's account of the incident was plausible, and was corroborated by other evidence, while defendant's testimony was incredible.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.