People v Baker
2011 NY Slip Op 07997 [89 AD3d 1431]
November 10, 2011
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 4th, 2012


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Desiree R. Baker,Appellant.

[*1]The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert B. Hallborg, Jr., of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Kristi M. Ahlstrom of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.), rendered June 22, 2009.The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the first degree and criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon a jury verdict of robbery inthe first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the thirddegree (§ 265.02 [1]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime of robbery inthe first degree as charged to the jury (seePeople v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's contention that theverdict with respect to that count is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, weconclude that County Court properly denied her challenge for cause to a prospective juror. "It is wellsettled that 'a prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to beimpartial must be excused unless the [prospective] juror states unequivocally on the record that he orshe can be fair and impartial' " (People vOdum, 67 AD3d 1465, 1465 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 804 [2010], 15 NY3d755 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 326 [2010], quoting People vChambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; see also People v Semper, 276 AD2d 263[2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 738 [2001]). Even assuming, arguendo, that "the initial statementsof the prospective juror raised a serious doubt regarding his ability to be impartial, we conclude that theprospective juror ultimately stated unequivocally that he could be fair" (People v Brown, 26 AD3d 885, 886[2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 846 [2006]; see Chambers, 97 NY2d at 419).Present—Fahey, J.P., Carni, Sconiers, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.


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.