Opinion
July 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Antonio Brandveen, J.).
There was probable cause to arrest defendant based on the statements of his mother's common-law husband, a citizen-informer who went voluntarily to the police and revealed that defendant had confessed his involvement in the crime to him (see, Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108; Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410). Since defendant was 17 years old at the time of his arrest, he was not a juvenile and it was not necessary for the police to notify his family pursuant to CPL 140.20 (6) (CPL 1.20; People v. Crosby, 105 A.D.2d 844).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence three photographs of the murder scene after determining that their probative value outweighed any prejudice to defendant (People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 369-370, cert denied 416 U.S. 905; People v. Bell, 63 N.Y.2d 796).
Defendant's claim that reversible error occurred when prospective jurors were questioned in his absence is without merit. To the extent the questioning involved general juror qualifications, People v. Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247), decided on statutory grounds (CPL 260.20), expressly was given prospective effect only to cases in which jury selection occurred after October 27, 1992 (People v. Mitchell, 80 N.Y.2d 519, 529). To the extent that some of the questioning was case specific, People v Sloan ( 79 N.Y.2d 386), decided April 7, 1992, has also been held to have prospective application only (People v. Sprowal, 84 N.Y.2d 113). The jury selection, in this case, occurred prior to these dates.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.