| People v Herring |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 09085 [101 AD3d 1151] |
| December 26, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v HenryHerring, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JeanetteLifschitz, and Rona I. Kugler of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.),rendered November 26, 2007, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robberyin the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree,criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in thethird degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly denied the defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror.There was no evidence in the record that the juror had "a state of mind that [was] likely topreclude [her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial"(CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; see People v Callaghan, 220 AD2d 609 [1995]). Further, the recordsupports the court's determination that the prospective juror's ability to communicate in theEnglish language was sufficient (see CPL 270.20 [1] [a]; People v Chohan, 254AD2d 124 [1998]). Contrary to the defendant's additional contention, defense counsel's decisionnot to exercise a peremptory challenge against that prospective juror after the court denied hischallenge for cause did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143[2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to present adefense or to confront the witnesses against him because the Supreme Court precluded certainquestions regarding police investigation of the crime. The defendant had the opportunity toquestion the arresting officer regarding the presence of another vehicle at the scene where thedefendant was stopped and arrested, and the few questions that were not permitted wereirrelevant and would have confused the main issue and misled the jury (see People v Hayes, 17 NY3d 46,52-54 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 844 [2011]; People vSawyer, 304 AD2d 775 [2003]). Skelos, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.