| People v Odum |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08647 [67 AD3d 1465] |
| November 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roger Odum,Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F. Aloi, J.), renderedSeptember 25, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attemptedrobbery in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of attemptedrobbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [3]), defendant contendsthat County Court erred in denying his challenge for cause with respect to a prospective juror.We reject that contention. It is well settled that "a prospective juror whose statements raise aserious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the [prospective] jurorstates unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial" (People vChambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; see People v Nicholas, 98 NY2d 749, 751-752[2002]). Here, the prospective juror never expressed any doubt concerning his ability to be fairand impartial (see People v Semper, 276 AD2d 263 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d738 [2001]). We conclude that, viewing the statements of the prospective juror as a whole, thestatements were unequivocal despite the use of the words "think" and "try" (see People vShulman, 6 NY3d 1, 28 [2005], cert denied 547 US 1043 [2006]; Chambers,97 NY2d at 419; People v Jones, 21 AD3d 860 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 755[2005]; Semper, 276 AD2d 263 [2000]).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the interpreterassigned to assist him was inadequate because he lacked experience and was uncertified (seePeople v Santiago, 265 AD2d 827 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 866 [1999];People v Hatzipavlou, 175 AD2d 969 [1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 827 [1991]). Inany event, that contention is without merit. Although the interpreter did not have any priorexperience interpreting during a trial, the record establishes that he nevertheless was qualified todo so (see generally Hatzipavlou, 175 AD2d 969 [1991]). The fact that the interpreterwas not a certified interpreter does not invalidate his assistance to defendant (see People vCosta, 186 AD2d 299 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 761 [1992]; see generallyJudiciary Law § 387). Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that he was deniedeffective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Gorski, JJ.