Summary
finding no "improvident exercise of discretion" when three jurors witnessed altercation between victim's and defendant's families outside courthouse because jurors were questioned in camera and said they could still render impartial verdict
Summary of this case from Alfaro v. StateOpinion
April 29, 1996
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied suppression of the prospective in-court identification of the defendant by an eyewitness to the shooting. The witness's testimony at the Wade hearing established that he had known the defendant prior to the commission of the crime, and that his showup identification of the defendant was merely confirmatory ( see, People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v. Kerr, 210 A.D.2d 349; People v. Woodberry, 176 A.D.2d 770).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
It was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the trial court to deny the defendant's motion for a mistrial based upon three jurors having witnessed an altercation between the victim's and defendant's families outside the courthouse. A Trial Judge is vested with broad discretion in ruling on the issue of juror prejudice ( see, People v. Genovese, 10 N.Y.2d 478, 482). Here, during separate in camera inquiries, the court questioned the jurors regarding any inferences they might have drawn based on their observations, and counsel on both sides were allowed to participate. The jurors' responses unequivocally indicated that their ability to render an impartial verdict in the case had not been affected ( see, People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 298-299; People v. Velez, 222 A.D.2d 539; People v. Williams, 221 A.D.2d 673).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.