PEOPLE v. JORDAN (1999)

 Contrary to the contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief, he was not denied his right to a trial by a jury of his peers.   When defendant challenged the composition of the two jury pools during jury selection, County Court held a hearing to determine how the jury pools had been selected.   Defendant failed to “substantiate his claim that the African-American community [in Erie County] was underrepresented in [the] jury pools * * * as a result of a ‘systematic exclusion’ of these individuals in the jury-selection process” (People v. Hobson, 227 A.D.2d 643, 644, 643 N.Y.S.2d 610, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 986, 649 N.Y.S.2d 393, 672 N.E.2d 619;  see, People v. Shedrick, 66 N.Y.2d 1015, 1017, 499 N.Y.S.2d 388, 489 N.E.2d 1290, rearg. denied 67 N.Y.2d 758, 500 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 490 N.E.2d 1234;  People v. Guzman, 60 N.Y.2d 403, 410, 469 N.Y.S.2d 916, 457 N.E.2d 1143, cert. denied 466 U.S. 951, 104 S.Ct. 2155, 80 L.Ed.2d 541).

 Defendant further contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because the victim's identification of defendant was unreliable and the officer's description of him was inaccurate.   The credibility of those witnesses was for the jury to determine (see, People v. Hill, 115 A.D.2d 239, 495 N.Y.S.2d 843, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 884, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1036, 492 N.E.2d 1243), and it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that reversal is required based on the admission of an officer's testimony that bolstered an out-of-court identification (see, People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1025, 457 N.Y.S.2d 474, 443 N.E.2d 948;  People v. Chambers, 191 A.D.2d 1031, 595 N.Y.S.2d 346, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1012, 600 N.Y.S.2d 200, 616 N.E.2d 857) and an improper remark by the prosecutor (see, People v. Hess, 234 A.D.2d 925, 653 N.Y.S.2d 216, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 1011, 666 N.Y.S.2d 106, 688 N.E.2d 1390).   In any event, any alleged error in the admission of the officer's testimony is harmless (see, People v. Cruz, 214 A.D.2d 952, 626 N.Y.S.2d 920, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 793, 632 N.Y.S.2d 506, 656 N.E.2d 605), nor does the prosecutor's remark warrant reversal (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 401, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885).   Also not preserved for our review is defendant's further contention that photographs received in evidence were not properly authenticated, and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15[6][a] ).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: