PEOPLE v. HARRIS (2009)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J.), rendered June 7, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

 The court properly denied defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror who communicated articulately with the court and counsel in lengthy colloquies, thereby demonstrating a complete command of the English language, but who nevertheless expressed doubts that his knowledge of English was sufficient for jury service.   The panelist never expressed doubts about his fairness, but only about his capacity.   The court was able to make an objective evaluation of the panelist's knowledge of English (see People v. Berry, 43 A.D.3d 1365, 842 N.Y.S.2d 822 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1031, 852 N.Y.S.2d 16, 881 N.E.2d 1203 [2008] ), and the panelist's subjective and unfounded view of his own capacity was not controlling.

 The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion regarding his written statement.   The record supports the court's finding that the statement was attenuated from an arrest made in violation of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 [1980], since there was an interval of seven hours between defendant's arrest and interrogation, and there were sufficient intervening circumstances and no flagrant government misconduct (see People v. Harris, 77 N.Y.2d 434, 568 N.Y.S.2d 702, 570 N.E.2d 1051 [1991];  People v. Padilla, 28 A.D.3d 236, 811 N.Y.S.2d 669 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 760, 819 N.Y.S.2d 886, 853 N.E.2d 257 [2006] ).   In any event, any error in the admission of the statement was harmless (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ).