| People v Rojas |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 08639 [133 AD3d 543] |
| November 24, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jose Rojas, Appellant. |
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Joseph M.Nursey of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Susan Gliner of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), renderedMarch 16, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, andsentencing him to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.
Since defendant's claim under People v O'Rama (78 NY2d 270 [1991])involves jury notes that the court read into the record before responding, therebyproviding counsel with notice of their contents, defendant's claim requires preservation(see People v Nealon,26 NY3d 152 [2015]; People v Williams,21 NY3d 932, 934-935 [2013]), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim inthe interest of justice.
The prosecutor's summation argument suggesting a possible motive for defendant'sotherwise senseless attack on the victim does not warrant reversal (see generallyPeople v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976[1998]; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], lvdenied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). It was permissible for the prosecutor to draw areasonable, evidence-based inference that defendant, while in an intoxicated state, mayhave mistaken the victim for another woman who had been connected to a prioraltercation.
The court did not err in allowing the deliberating jury to view a surveillance video,already in evidence, on a laptop computer supplied by the prosecutor. Under thecircumstances, this was the functional equivalent of providing a DVD player for use inthe jury room, and there is nothing to indicate that the use of a computer resulted in anyprejudice.
Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the procedure by which the courtadjudicated the second of his two applications under Batson v Kentucky (476 US79 [1986]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternativeholding, we find no basis for reversal. Concur—Tom, J.P., Acosta, Saxe,Moskowitz and Feinman, JJ.