PEOPLE v. CANTY (1997)

 We reject the contention of defendant that County Court's supplemental instruction to the jury was coercive (see, Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501-502, 17 S.Ct. 154, 157, 41 L.Ed. 528;  People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, 727, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299).   The court's charge, read in its entirety, did not coerce or compel the jury to reach a verdict (see, People v. Williams, 210 A.D.2d 966, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1023, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 982, 629 N.Y.S.2d 742, 653 N.E.2d 638;  People v. Novak, 179 A.D.2d 1053, 579 N.Y.S.2d 509, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 922, 582 N.Y.S.2d 82, 590 N.E.2d 1210).   Nor was it coercive for the court to inform the jury that hotel accommodations had been made and that “the reasonable thing to do” was to stay overnight unless there was “a prospect of a verdict fairly soon” (see, People v. Pagan, supra, at 726-727, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299;  People v. Houseman, 206 A.D.2d 845, 616 N.Y.S.2d 304).   Permitting the jury, at its request, to continue deliberations for an additional half hour was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Backus, 184 A.D.2d 231, 232, 584 N.Y.S.2d 557, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 926, 589 N.Y.S.2d 854, 603 N.E.2d 959;  People v. Bastien, 180 A.D.2d 691, 692, 580 N.Y.S.2d 54, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 997, 584 N.Y.S.2d 451, 594 N.E.2d 945).

There is no merit to the contention of defendant that the People failed to disprove his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 35.15[1], [2][a];  People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, 114-115, 506 N.Y.S.2d 18, 497 N.E.2d 41).   The proof, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, establishes that defendant was not justified in using deadly physical force against one victim or in using physical force against the other (see, People v. Alls, 195 A.D.2d 952, 601 N.Y.S.2d 749, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 890, 610 N.Y.S.2d 157, 632 N.E.2d 467;  People v. Davis, 170 A.D.2d 956, 566 N.Y.S.2d 892, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 960, 570 N.Y.S.2d 493, 573 N.E.2d 581).

Finally, in light of the nature of the crimes, we conclude that defendant's sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: