PEOPLE v. IDDINGS (2005)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02[1], [4] ).   We reject defendant's contention that County Court abused its discretion in determining that a prosecution witness was competent to provide sworn testimony (see People v. Muldrow, 273 A.D.2d 814, 815, 711 N.Y.S.2d 649, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 891, 715 N.Y.S.2d 384, 738 N.E.2d 788).   Also contrary to defendant's contention, the court properly denied defendant's challenges for cause with respect to three prospective jurors.   Those prospective jurors stated unequivocally that they would set aside their beliefs about weapons and determine the case based on the evidence presented to them (see generally People v. Chambers, 283 A.D.2d 904, 906, 727 N.Y.S.2d 210, affd. 97 N.Y.2d 417, 740 N.Y.S.2d 291, 766 N.E.2d 953).   Defendant further contends that the court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials because those statements were rendered involuntary as a result of his intoxication. We reject that contention inasmuch as the evidence presented at the suppression hearing establishes that defendant was not “intoxicated to a degree of mania or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements” (People v. Benjamin, 17 A.D.3d 688, 689, 793 N.Y.S.2d 547).   The contention of defendant with respect to prosecutorial misconduct on summation is not preserved for our review, and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see generally People v. Procks, 258 A.D.2d 951, 952, 685 N.Y.S.2d 543, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 976, 695 N.Y.S.2d 63, 716 N.E.2d 1108).   Contrary to defendant's further contentions, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.   We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

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

MEMORANDUM: