Opinion
December 9, 1993
Appeal from the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.).
Defendant's conviction arose out of his sale of cocaine to a police informant. On appeal, he first contends that County Court erred in admitting the cocaine into evidence because of certain discrepancies in the testimony of the People's witnesses concerning the consistency and color of the cocaine. The record, however, contains evidence of a sufficient unbroken chain of custody of the cocaine to provide reasonable assurance of the identity of the cocaine and its unchanged condition (see, People v Grant, 179 A.D.2d 677, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 831; People v Summers, 176 A.D.2d 905, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 864). Any minor discrepancies in the witnesses' description of the cocaine merely went to the weight to be accorded the evidence by the jury, not the admissibility of the evidence (see, People v Wynn, 176 A.D.2d 375, 377).
We also reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in admitting into evidence a tape recording of the conversation between defendant and the informant during which the drug sale was alleged to have occurred. A sufficient chain of custody of the tape was established and the informant testified as to the accuracy of the tape (see, People v Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 527-528). The tape as a whole was audible and not so indistinct that the jury had to speculate as to its contents, and that one statement was inaudible did not make the tape inadmissible (see, People v Morgan, 175 A.D.2d 930, 932, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 861).
Defendant's claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is lacking in merit. The jury was fully aware of the arrangement the informant had made with the authorities in exchange for his cooperation, and we see no reason to disturb the jury's assessment of the informant's credibility (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830), we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
Defendant also contends that County Court erred in denying his challenge to a juror for cause based upon the juror's alleged racial animosity from his job as a correction officer. During the voir dire, the juror explained that his experiences as a correction officer had not created any animosity toward minorities, and he stated that he could be fair and impartial and render a verdict based solely upon the evidence presented at trial. In these circumstances, we see no error in County Court's ruling (see, People v Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410, 418-419, cert denied 487 U.S. 1239). Nor is there any merit in defendant's final claim that his sentence of concurrent prison terms of 12 1/2 years to life is harsh and excessive.
The judgment of conviction should therefore be affirmed.
Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.