PEOPLE v. ELLIS (2019)

OPINION OF THE COURT

 MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.  Defendant's claim that he was deprived of the right to a fair trial because he wore prison-issued clothing during several days of voir dire and trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]).

In addition, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's for-cause challenge to a prospective juror based on a claim of implicit bias (see People v. Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410, 418, 526 N.Y.S.2d 932, 521 N.E.2d 1075 [1988], cert denied 487 U.S. 1239, 108 S.Ct. 2911, 101 L.Ed.2d 943 [1988];  see also People v. Furey, 18 N.Y.3d 284, 287–288, 938 N.Y.S.2d 277, 961 N.E.2d 668 [2011];  CPL 270.20[1][c]).  Where, as here, there was no indication that the juror knew or had a professional or personal relationship with any of the People's witnesses or counsel, the juror's impartiality was not compromised merely because he was a former employee of the police department (cf. People v. Branch, 46 N.Y.2d 645, 651, 415 N.Y.S.2d 985, 389 N.E.2d 467 [1979]) or because he “had relatives in the same profession” as the People's witnesses (Colon, 71 N.Y.2d at 418, 526 N.Y.S.2d 932, 521 N.E.2d 1075).  Nor was excusal required based on the juror's familial relationship to another prospective juror who was excused because of professional relationships with two of the People's witnesses—particularly where the seated juror confirmed multiple times on the record that he could be fair and impartial, and that he had not previously discussed the case, and would not do so if seated as a juror.  In contrast, when the prosecutor asked his relative, “you think that [your professional relationships] would give you a problem sitting as a fair juror here?,” the relative said “I think so” and was excused for cause.

Lastly, the record confirms that the evidence of defendant's guilt, without reference to his videotaped statement, was overwhelming.  Accordingly, the Appellate Division properly rejected defendant's legal sufficiency claim (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007]) and properly concluded that there was no reasonable possibility that the trial court's admission of the statement affected the jury's verdict (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 240–241, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975]).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur. Judge Rivera dissents for reasons stated in the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division concerning preserved issues (see People v. Ellis, 166 A.D.3d 993, 997–1006, 88 N.Y.S.3d 537 [2nd Dept. 2018] [Barros, J., dissenting] ).