PEOPLE v. ROWE

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Sydney ROWE, Appellant.

Decided: September 21, 1998

Before MANGANO, P.J., and COPERTINO, JOY and FLORIO, JJ. Gary A. Farrell, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Ann Bordley, and Howard B. Goodman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), rendered March 31, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the respective relationships of two prospective jurors with people in the District Attorney's office and the trial prosecutor were so remote in all respects that it did not render them inherently biased.   Therefore, the denial of his challenges for cause as to these two prospective jurors was not error (see, CPL 270.20[1][c];  People v. Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410, 418, 526 N.Y.S.2d 932, 521 N.E.2d 1075, cert. denied 487 U.S. 1239, 108 S.Ct. 2911, 101 L.Ed.2d 943;  compare, People v. Branch, 46 N.Y.2d 645, 649, 651, 415 N.Y.S.2d 985, 389 N.E.2d 467).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 125.25[2];  People v. Rios, 230 A.D.2d 87, 658 N.Y.S.2d 579;  People v. Rosario, 208 A.D.2d 961, 617 N.Y.S.2d 887;  People v. Santana, 163 A.D.2d 495, 558 N.Y.S.2d 172, affd. 78 N.Y.2d 1027, 576 N.Y.S.2d 208, 582 N.E.2d 591;  see also, People v. Coluccio, 170 A.D.2d 523, 524, 566 N.Y.S.2d 87), and to disprove his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt.   Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5] ).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard