Opinion
No. KA 07-02177.
November 20, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F. Aloi, J.), rendered September 25, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted robbery in the first degree.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (ROBERT P. RICKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (BRENTON P. DADEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Present: Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Gorski, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his challenge for cause with respect to a prospective juror. We reject that contention. It is well settled that "a prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the [prospective] juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial" ( People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419; see People v Nicholas, 98 NY2d 749, 751-752). Here, the prospective juror never expressed any doubt concerning his ability to be fair and impartial ( see People v Semper, 276 AD2d 263, lv denied 96 NY2d 738). We conclude that, viewing the statements of the prospective juror as a whole, the statements were unequivocal despite the use of the words "think" and "try" ( see People v Shulman, 6 NY3d 1, 28, cert denied 547 US 1043; Chambers, 97 NY2d at 419; People v Jones, 21 AD3d 860, lv denied 6 NY3d 755; Semper, 276 AD2d 263).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the interpreter assigned to assist him was inadequate because he lacked experience and was uncertified ( see People v Santiago, 265 AD2d 827, lv denied 94 NY2d 866; People v Hatzipavlou, 175 AD2d 969, lv denied 79 NY2d 827). In any event, that contention is without merit. Although the interpreter did not have any prior experience interpreting during a trial, the record establishes that he nevertheless was qualified to do so ( see generally Hatzipavlou, 175 AD2d 969). The fact that the interpreter was not a certified interpreter does not invalidate his assistance to defendant ( see People v Costa, 186 AD2d 299, lv denied 81 NY2d 761; see generally Judiciary Law § 387). Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel ( see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).