The court properly denied defendant's request for an intoxication charge. The evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, was insufficient for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on the basis of intoxication (see People v. Gaines, 83 N.Y.2d 925, 927; People v. Rodriguez, 76 N.Y.2d 918, 920; People v. Silverio, 252 A.D.2d 358, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 930) . We note that defendant's overall course of conduct showed that he was behaving purposefully.
The court properly exercised its discretion when, after a prospective juror appeared upset about his excusal, and another panelist, who was ultimately excused as well, expressed concern about the incident, the court declined to ask the entire panel about any possible effect that the incident may have had (see People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 299). There is no evidence that any other panelists noticed the original incident, or that there was any possibility of prejudice to defendant.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.