| People v Jimenez |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06252 [98 AD3d 886] |
| September 25, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Josefina Jimenez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Noah J. Chamoy of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Darcel D. Clark, J.), rendered May 18, 2010,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of weapon in the second degreeand criminal trespass in the first degree, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of 3½years, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for furtherproceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The police lawfully searched defendant's shoulder bag as incident to a lawful arrest (seePeople v Smith, 59 NY2d 454 [1983]; People v Wylie, 244 AD2d 247 [1997], lvdenied 91 NY2d 946 [1998]). The bag was large enough to contain a weapon and was withindefendant's grabbable area at the time of her arrest for criminal trespass in connection with thepolice investigation of a burglary. Moreover, the police did not have exclusive control of the bag.The surrounding circumstances here support a reasonable belief in the existence of an exigencyjustifying a search of the bag, even though the officers did not explicitly testify at the suppressionhearing that they feared for their safety (see People v Batista, 88 NY2d 650, 654 [1996];People v Bowden, 87 AD3d402, 405 [2011]).
The court properly denied defendant's application to reopen the hearing based on trialtestimony. The court correctly determined that the search would still have been lawful under theadditional facts revealed at trial.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's challenges for cause to twoprospective jurors. The colloquy between counsel, the court and each panelist, viewed as awhole, did not cast doubt on either panelist's ability to follow the court's instructions and renderan impartial verdict (see People v Roberson, 249 AD2d 148, 149-150 [1st Dept 1998],lv denied 92 NY2d 904 [1998]).
The court conducted a thorough inquiry into allegations of juror misconduct (see [*2]generally People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 298-299 [1987]), andit properly exercised its discretion in determining that no further inquiry was required (seePeople v Rodriguez, 71 NY2d 214 [1988]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny,Moskowitz, Freedman and Richter, JJ.