SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
November 10, 2011
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
DESIREE R. BAKER,
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.), rendered June 22, 2009.
People v Baker
Decided on November 10, 2011
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon a jury verdict of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime of robbery in the first degree as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict with respect to that count is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, we conclude that County Court properly denied her challenge for cause to a prospective juror. "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 Odum, 67 AD3d 1465, 1465, lv denied 14 NY3d 804, 15 NY3d 755, cert denied ___ US ___, 131 S Ct 326, quoting People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419; see also People v Semper, 276 AD2d 263, lv denied 96 NY2d 738). Even assuming, arguendo, that "the initial statements of the prospective juror raised a serious doubt regarding his ability to be impartial, we conclude that the prospective juror ultimately stated unequivocally that he could be fair" (People v Brown, 26 AD3d 885, 886, lv denied 6 NY3d 846; see Chambers, 97 NY2d at 419).
Entered: November 10, 2011
Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.