People v Cancel
2010 NY Slip Op 01500 [70 AD3d 960]
February 16, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 31, 2010


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Aaron Cancel, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Corsi of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky,and Adrienne D. Gonzalez of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.),rendered June 12, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he andanother person formed and shared a common intent to murder the victim is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008];People v Mathis, 60 AD3d 697, 698 [2009]; People v Perez, 265 AD2d 347, 348[1999]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's guilt of murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Thedefendant, with the requisite mental state, acted in concert with, and intentionally aided, a secondshooter (see Penal Law § 20.00; People v Cheng, 232 AD2d 651 [1996];People v Johnson, 162 AD2d 620 [1990]).

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court properly declined to dismiss ajuror and declare a mistrial on the ground that the juror was grossly unqualified. To find a jurorgrossly unqualified, the court must be convinced that the juror would be prevented fromrendering an impartial verdict (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 298 [1987]). Suchdetermination is to be afforded great deference (see People v Punwa, 24 AD3d 471, 472[2005]; People v Franklin, 7 AD3d 966, 967 [2004]), and we perceive no basis to disturbthe determination on appeal.

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Rivera,J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.