Opinion
January 31, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [killing with intent to cause serious physical injury]), defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish intent and causation; that the court erred in receiving incompetent opinion testimony; that the court erroneously denied a mistrial as a result of a deadlocked jury and instead gave a coercive Allen charge; and that his sentence is harsh and excessive.
The People adduced sufficient evidence to establish defendant's intent to cause serious physical injury. Defendant's criminal intent is inferable from the nature and fatal outcome of the beating that he inflicted on the decedent, from defendant's admission that he chased the victim some distance before the fight, and from his false and contradictory statements to police following the incident.
Similarly without merit is defendant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the victim's death was caused by the beating. The medical examiner was unwavering in his testimony that the primary cause of death was the injury to the victim's head and neck, and he rejected the defense theory that the victim died of a heart attack.
With respect to the admission of improper opinion testimony, we conclude that any prejudice was alleviated by the court's forceful instruction that the jury should disregard that testimony. We must presume that the jury followed the court's instructions (People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102, 1104).
The court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial. At the time the jury reported a deadlock, it had been deliberating less than six hours in a relatively complicated circumstantial evidence case. Defendant's challenge to the court's Allen charge is also lacking in merit. That charge did not single out a particular juror or group of jurors with the effect of coercing a verdict.
Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant.