People v. Laboy

• Decision Date: 11 June 1998
• Citation: 251 A.D.2d 95,674 N.Y.S.2d 640
• Parties: , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5846 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric LABOY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 640

674 N.Y.S.2d 640

251 A.D.2d 95, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5846

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric LABOY, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

June 11, 1998.

David M. Cohn, for respondent.

Diane E. Courselle, for defendant-appellant.

Before LERNER, P.J., and SULLIVAN, NARDELLI, RUBIN and SAXE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered November 15, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of four counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to five concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in excusing, without inquiry, those prospective jurors who indicated they could not be impartial. This did not constitute an abdication of the court's judicial function in voir dire, since these venirepersons' unequivocal responses to the court's question satisfied the court of their lack of qualification to serve as jurors.

The court properly permitted the introduction of limited expert testimony concerning the various roles played during an observation post operation to provide the jury with an understanding of the officers' behavior, and to demonstrate the reliability of the officers' observations (People v. Almodovar, 178 A.D.2d 133, 576 N.Y.S.2d 566, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 943, 583 N.Y.S.2d 197, 592 N.E.2d 805). Moreover, this testimony was not unduly prejudicial, nor did it improperly enhance the officers' reliability (id.; see also, People v. Maldonado, 220 A.D.2d 212, 631 N.Y.S.2d 850, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 904, 641 N.Y.S.2d 234, 663 N.E.2d 1264).

The court also properly admitted expert testimony concerning photographs taken, since the photographer had extensive experience, and the testimony was helpful, under the circumstances, on the issue of magnification (see, People v. Miller, 91 N.Y.2d 372, 670 N.Y.S.2d 978, 694 N.E.2d 61). The court's instructions obviated any potential prejudice.

The court properly refused to admit a criminal court complaint that purportedly contradicted one of the officers' testimony on a tangential matter. The complaint was signed by a different officer, who did not testify, and the purported contradiction appeared in a quotation from yet another non-testifying officer. This accusatory...