| People v Bonds |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 00162 [157 AD3d 713] |
| January 10, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronell Bonds, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Jeffrey Dellheim of counsel), for appellant, andappellant pro se.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano,Jr., J.), rendered August 14, 2013, convicting him of murder in the first degree, conspiracy in thesecond degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, intimidating a witness inthe first degree, and tampering with a witness in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion in declining to discharge a sworn juror who, prior to empanelment, stated that she wasexperiencing anxiety related to her employment, since the court's inquiry established that thejuror's concerns would not adversely impact her ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror(see CPL 270.15 [3]; People vDeFreitas, 116 AD3d 1078, 1080-1081 [2014]; People v Morales, 36 AD3d 631, 632 [2007]; People v Echevarria, 30 AD3d 537[2006]; cf. People v Wells, 63AD3d 967, 968 [2009], affd 15 NY3d 927 [2010]; People v Huntley, 237AD2d 533, 534 [1997]; People v Bolden, 197 AD2d 528, 529 [1993]; People vVasquez, 141 AD2d 880, 881 [1988]). The defendant's related assertion that his trial counselwas not afforded an adequate opportunity to question the juror is without merit.
The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the evidence waslegally insufficient to support the convictions because the testimony of his accomplice was notsufficiently corroborated is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, inany event, without merit (see People vCaban, 5 NY3d 143, 149 [2005]; People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 683 [1992];People v Montefusco, 44 AD3d879, 880 [2007]). Further, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legallysufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 349 [2007]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight ofthe evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348-349), we[*2]nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunityto view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Upon reviewing the record here,we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the Supreme Courtfailed to comply with the procedure for addressing jury notes set forth by the Court of Appeals inPeople v O'Rama (78 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Ramirez, 15 NY3d824, 825-826 [2010]; People vFabers, 133 AD3d 616, 617 [2015]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the allegedfailure to comply with the O'Rama procedure did not constitute a mode of proceedingserror which would obviate the preservation requirement because it is evident from the record thatthe court fulfilled its core responsibilities under CPL 310.30 by providing defense counsel withmeaningful notice of the content of the jury note (see People v Nealon, 26 NY3d 152 [2015]; People v Gibson, 147 AD3d 779,780 [2017]; People v Deokoro, 137AD3d 1297, 1298 [2016]; People v Fabers, 133 AD3d at 618). In any event, thecontention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Roman, Miller and Connolly, JJ., concur.