From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rosario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 1996
224 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 26, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's assertion, he was not improperly denied his right to be present at six side-bar conferences with prospective jurors since he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived this right prior to the start of jury selection (see, People v. Pondexter, 215 A.D.2d 409).

The defendant's further contention that the trial court committed error when it discharged a sworn juror as unavailable after the juror had informed the court, in an ex parte communication, that her brother-in-law had been shot and killed is without merit. The discharge by the court of this juror constituted a proper exercise of the court's discretion (see, People v. Delgado, 187 A.D.2d 447). It was also proper for the court to excuse another juror who informed the court, in the defendant's presence, that he wanted to be excused in order to start working at a new job for which he had just received an offer (see, People v. Bolden, 197 A.D.2d 528). The court properly declined to discharge another juror who, although the defense counsel suggested had made negative comments during his cross-examination of one of the witnesses, unequivocally stated that she could be fair regarding this case (see, People v Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 298-299).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People sufficiently established, in accordance with People v. Ryan ( 82 N.Y.2d 497), and People v. Hill ( 85 N.Y.2d 256), that he knew the weight of the substance he sold to the undercover officer on July 23, 1992. Although the undercover officer negotiated the terms of the deal, including the amount of the substance to be bought and its price, with the codefendant Moses Caban (see, People v. Caban, 224 A.D.2d 705 [decided herewith]), when the undercover officer arrived at the pre-arranged meeting place, it was the defendant who made the sale in conformance with the pre-negotiated terms. Indeed, the defendant told the undercover officer that Caban had told him that the undercover officer was going to call. Moreover, the defendant told the undercover officer that he, the defendant, would take care of him.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rosario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 1996
224 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Rosario

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE ROSARIO, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 26, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 967