Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard Charles BRINK, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25[2] ) and attempted burglary in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 140.25[2] ). Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court properly denied the request for a mistrial that he made after he learned that some of the jurors had possibly read a newspaper article concerning his prior convictions. “[I]t has been uniformly held that the trial judge ‘is required to take appropriate steps to insure that the jurors [have] not been exposed to or prejudiced by such accounts' ” (People v. Rivera, 26 N.Y.2d 304, 307, 310 N.Y.S.2d 287, 258 N.E.2d 699). Here, we conclude that the court took the appropriate steps by excusing only the two jurors who indicated that they had read all or part of the article and determining that the remaining jurors were unaware of the article (see People v. Shaw, 92 A.D.2d 623, 624-625, 459 N.Y.S.2d 914). We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in failing to discharge an alternate juror who was substituted for one of the excused jurors and who allegedly had been asleep during the trial (see People v. Bradley, 38 A.D.3d 793, 794, 832 N.Y.S.2d 605, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 863, 840 N.Y.S.2d 893, 872 N.E.2d 1199; People v. Martin, 28 A.D.3d 583, 584, 813 N.Y.S.2d 207, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 791, 821 N.Y.S.2d 821, 854 N.E.2d 1285). The record establishes that “defendant did not request that the court make an inquiry of the juror, nor did he move to discharge the juror. The defendant thus demonstrated a willingness to continue to accept the juror as a trier of fact” (People v. Quinones, 41 A.D.3d 868, 868, 840 N.Y.S.2d 804, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1008, 850 N.Y.S.2d 396, 880 N.E.2d 882).
Contrary to the contention of defendant, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment to enable him to secure the attendance of a witness (see generally Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283, 481 N.Y.S.2d 675, 471 N.E.2d 447; People v. Singleton, 41 N.Y.2d 402, 405, 393 N.Y.S.2d 353, 361 N.E.2d 1003), inasmuch as defendant indicated in his offer of proof that the witness would testify solely with respect to collateral matters concerning the credibility of the People's witnesses (see People v. Dawson, 249 A.D.2d 977, 978, 672 N.Y.S.2d 203, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 872, 689 N.Y.S.2d 434, 711 N.E.2d 648; People v. Chen Liu, 244 A.D.2d 352, 663 N.Y.S.2d 656, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 924, 670 N.Y.S.2d 406, 693 N.E.2d 753). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329, rearg.denied 97 N.Y.2d 678, 738 N.Y.S.2d 292, 764 N.E.2d 396; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919) and, contrary to his further contention, 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). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation (see People v. Johnston, 43 A.D.3d 1273, 1274-1275, 842 N.Y.S.2d 837, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1007, 850 N.Y.S.2d 395, 880 N.E.2d 881; People v. Smith, 32 A.D.3d 1291, 1292, 821 N.Y.S.2d 356, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 849, 830 N.Y.S.2d 708, 862 N.E.2d 800) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see People v. Williams, 28 A.D.3d 1059, 1060-1061, 813 N.Y.S.2d 606, affd. 8 N.Y.3d 854, 831 N.Y.S.2d 367, 863 N.E.2d 588; People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it does not warrant reversal.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 31, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)