Opinion
September 30, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.).
Defendant argues that three sworn jurors, all of whom, as non smokers, expressed some anxiety concerning a dispute between the jurors over smoking in the jury room, should have been discharged. The dispute occurred during the presentation of the People's case on a Friday afternoon; the case was submitted to the jury the following Tuesday. Smoking rules were established, and there was no further complaint from any juror on the subject. At no time did any of the three jurors express an inability either to deliberate with the remaining jurors or to reach an impartial verdict. The responses given by the remaining jurors that the matter was resolved indicate that any concern expressed by the three jurors in this regard was unfounded. The questioning of all of the jurors sufficiently established that discharge was unwarranted, and it was not necessary to obtain "unequivocal assurances" that the jurors could deliberate impartially (compare, People v Rodriguez, 71 N.Y.2d 214).
We find no error in requiring defendant to give a voice exemplar in his native tongue for the jury to compare to the voice on the tapes that were recorded as part of the undercover operation. The refusal or inability of defendant to read from the transcripts justified the direction that he repeat the words whispered to him by the official court interpreter.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.