Opinion
December 10, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J.).
After the jury forewoman announced a guilty verdict, defense counsel asked that the jury be polled. Juror 4 requested permission to ask the forewoman a question in private, and the court responded by rejecting the verdict and sending the jurors back for further deliberation, at the conclusion of which all 12 expressed an unequivocal "guilty" vote. Defendant now argues that the court should have held a hearing to determine the nature of the fourth juror's question, which was never expressed on the record.
We find that the objection is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Cain, 76 N.Y.2d 119, 124, n 2). Were we to consider the argument in the interest of justice, we would find it without merit (see, People v Pickett, 61 N.Y.2d 773).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.