PEOPLE v. SORRENTINO (2004)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1] ).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence insofar as the jury rejected his defense of extreme emotional disturbance (see People v. Campbell, 275 A.D.2d 984, 713 N.Y.S.2d 432, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 732, 722 N.Y.S.2d 799, 745 N.E.2d 1022;  see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   “[R]esolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses” (People v. Hernandez, 288 A.D.2d 489, 490, 733 N.Y.S.2d 886, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 729, 740 N.Y.S.2d 702, 767 N.E.2d 159;  see People v. Williams, 291 A.D.2d 897, 898, 737 N.Y.S.2d 737, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 763, 742 N.Y.S.2d 624, 769 N.E.2d 370).

 Defendant further contends that County Court erred in refusing to poll the jury to determine whether a juror who had formerly worked for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had provided the jury with information concerning the drug approval process.   When the court questioned the individual juror at issue, the juror assured the court that he did not discuss his experience with the FDA with the other jurors.   Thus, the court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to poll the remaining jurors (see People v. Dawson, 302 A.D.2d 744, 745, 754 N.Y.S.2d 919, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 561, 763 N.Y.S.2d 818, 795 N.E.2d 44).   The court properly permitted the People's expert witness to testify with respect to his opinion of defendant's mental status based solely on his second examination of defendant (see People v. Cerami, 33 N.Y.2d 243, 249, 351 N.Y.S.2d 681, 306 N.E.2d 799, rearg. denied 34 N.Y.2d 755, 357 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 314 N.E.2d 426).   Also contrary to the contention of defendant, he was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).   The contentions of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief concerning the venue and alleged prosecutorial misconduct are unpreserved for our review (see CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see 470.15[6] [a] ).   We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and conclude that they are lacking in merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: