Summary
rejecting claims raised by Smith in his pro se supplemental appellate brief, including his Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial claim
Summary of this case from Smith v. LaclairOpinion
438
March 11, 2003.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered September 25, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
Eli R. Koppel, for respondent.
Luke Martland Pro Se, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Marlow, JJ.
The court properly found two defense peremptory challenges to be pretextual and seated the jurors. The record of jury selection as a whole supports the court's credibility-based determination, which is entitled to great deference (People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, affd 500 U.S. 352). Defendant's uneven application of strikes with respect to one of the jurors at issue, and his citation of a highly remote factor in the other juror's background, support an inference of a discriminatory purpose.
The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from cross-examining a police witness about the absence of fingerprint evidence, since this line of inquiry was collateral, unsupported by any evidence, and likely to cause confusion and speculation on the part of the jury (see People v. Tejada, 249 A.D.2d 208, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 906). Defendant was not deprived of his right to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense (see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679).
We decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the non-inclusory concurrent count (see People v. Daughtry, 298 A.D.2d 184,lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 534; People v. Spence, 290 A.D.2d 223, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 641; People v. Kulakov, 278 A.D.2d 519, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 785).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.