| People v Toledo |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08800 [101 AD3d 571] |
| December 20, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JuanToledo, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Justin J. Braun of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Cassandra M. Mullen, J.), rendered March 18,2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of causing animal fighting (Agriculture and MarketsLaw § 351 [2] [a]), and sentencing him to a term of one year and a fine of $25,000,unanimously affirmed.
Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court erred in failing to excuse two prospectivejurors for cause, as he did not join in the challenges made to those jurors by other defendants(see People v Buckley, 75 NY2d 843, 846 [1990]; People v Colselby, 240 AD2d227 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 1010 [1997]). The record does not support theassertion that there was an arrangement whereby any defendant's challenge for cause applied toall defendants. The record only shows that the four defendants shared peremptorychallenges, as mandated by statute (see CPL 270.25 [3]). By contrast, whenchallenges for cause were made, the court gave the attorneys the opportunity to individually joinin the challenge. Furthermore, the primary claim of bias on the part of the two panelists at issuedid not involve defendant, but only a codefendant.
We decline to review defendant's claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding,we find that the court properly exercised its discretion in denying the challenges. As noted, thebias, if any, was primarily directed at a codefendant, notwithstanding the fact that the defendantswere charged with acting in concert. In any event, the colloquy between counsel, the court andeach panelist, viewed as a whole, did not cast doubt on either panelist's ability to follow thecourt's instructions and render an impartial verdict (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d417, 419 [2002]; People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 610-614 [2000]).[*2]
We perceive no reason to reduce the fine. If defendantcan establish that he is unable to pay the fine because of indigency, CPL 420.10 (5) provides aremedy. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.