PEOPLE v. CARELOCK (2000)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of three counts each of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25) and petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) and sentencing him to terms of incarceration aggregating 7 to 14 years.   Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his Batson challenge (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 87-89, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69).   We disagree.   The court properly determined that the explanations offered by the People for their peremptory challenges are race-neutral and not pretextual (see, People v. Hinds, 270 A.D.2d 891, 892, 705 N.Y.S.2d 463;  People v. Diaz, 269 A.D.2d 766, 703 N.Y.S.2d 414, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 852, 714 N.Y.S.2d 3, 736 N.E.2d 864;  People v. Pena, 251 A.D.2d 26, 34, 675 N.Y.S.2d 330, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 929, 680 N.Y.S.2d 470, 703 N.E.2d 282).   The trial court “was in the best position to observe the prosecutor's demeanor” (People v. Adams, 247 A.D.2d 625, 669 N.Y.S.2d 245, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 847, 677 N.Y.S.2d 77, 699 N.E.2d 437), and thus its determination is entitled to great deference (see, People v. Smith, 273 A.D.2d 896, 709 N.Y.S.2d 793;  People v. Ricks, 269 A.D.2d 851, 703 N.Y.S.2d 808, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 952, 710 N.Y.S.2d 8, 731 N.E.2d 625).

The court's evidentiary rulings do not warrant reversal.   The video clips and photos extracted from the original surveillance tapes were properly authenticated and admitted in evidence (see, People v. Scutt, 254 A.D.2d 807, 807-808, 679 N.Y.S.2d 489, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 1038, 684 N.Y.S.2d 503, 707 N.E.2d 458;  People v. Fondal, 154 A.D.2d 476, 546 N.Y.S.2d 26, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 770, 551 N.Y.S.2d 912, 551 N.E.2d 113;  see generally, People v. Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80, 83-85, 688 N.Y.S.2d 101, 710 N.E.2d 665).   Evidence concerning the incident at the Embassy Suites motel was properly admitted in order to establish defendant's complicity in an ongoing common scheme or plan to cash stolen and forged checks (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293-294, 61 N.E. 286;  People v. May, 162 A.D.2d 977, 978, 557 N.Y.S.2d 203, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 861, 560 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 561 N.E.2d 900;  People v. Rutman, 260 App.Div. 784, 789, 24 N.Y.S.2d 334).   Moreover, it was properly admitted to show defendant's intent to defraud and knowledge of the stolen and forged character of the checks (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 243-244, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808;  People v. Dales, 309 N.Y. 97, 101-102, 127 N.E.2d 829;  People v. Marrin, 205 N.Y. 275, 279-281, 98 N.E. 474;  People v. Dolan, 186 N.Y. 4, 9-10, 78 N.E. 569) by explaining how defendant might have come to possess the checks (see, People v. Johnson, 65 N.Y.2d 556, 562, 493 N.Y.S.2d 445, 483 N.E.2d 120, rearg. denied 66 N.Y.2d 759, 497 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 488 N.E.2d 118).

The evidence is legally sufficient to establish defendant's knowledge that the checks were forged (see, People v. Johnson, supra, at 562-563, 493 N.Y.S.2d 445, 483 N.E.2d 120;  People v. Williams, 271 A.D.2d 270, 706 N.Y.S.2d 631;  People v. Mariko, 267 A.D.2d 113, 700 N.Y.S.2d 435, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 950, 710 N.Y.S.2d 6, 731 N.E.2d 623;  People v. Williams, 265 A.D.2d 826, 695 N.Y.S.2d 817, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 868, 704 N.Y.S.2d 544, 725 N.E.2d 1106).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: