| People v Jouvert |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03688 [50 AD3d 504] |
| April 24, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v RudyJouvert, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Jaime Bachrach of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J., on suppressionmotion; Marcy L. Kahn, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered August 15, 2006, convictingdefendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourthdegree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, andsentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 3½ to 7 years,unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence established that the knife recovered fromdefendant was a gravity knife (see People v Smith, 309 AD2d 608 [2003], lv denied1 NY3d 580 [2003]). An officer both described and demonstrated for the jury the manner inwhich the knife operated, which conformed to the statutory definition of a gravity knife (seePenal Law § 265.00 [5]). Defendant's main argument to the contrary is based on amisinterpretation of the officer's testimony.
The motion court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence withoutgranting a hearing. The allegations in defendant's moving papers, when considered in the contextof the detailed information provided by the People as to the basis for his arrest, wereinsufficiently specific to require a hearing (compare People v Long, 36 AD3d 132 [2006], affd 8 NY3d1014 [2007], with People v Bryant,8 NY3d 530, 533-534 [2007]).
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's challenge for cause to aprospective juror. Although the panelist initially expressed an inclination to credit policetestimony, the court instructed him that he could not give any extra credence to an officer'stestimony by virtue of the officer's status. During a colloquy on defendant's challenge for cause,defense counsel expressly conceded that the panelist agreed to follow that instruction, and thiswas the court's recollection as well. Under all the circumstances, transcription error is the onlyreasonable explanation of a statement appearing in the minutes that defendant cites as supportinghis position (see e.g. People v Valdes, 283 [*2]AD2d 187[2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 688 [2001]). Accordingly, the panelist's unequivocaldeclaration rendered him qualified for service. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Sweenyand Moskowitz, JJ.