PEOPLE v. RODRIQUEZ

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting bank surveillance videotapes, and photographs made from those tapes, without expert testimony about the digitizing process used at the FBI laboratory to slow the tapes down and make still photos from them, since a bank employee responsible f or making the original tapes at the bank testified that he compared the original and slowed-down tapes and that what was represented therein was identical except for speed (see, People v. Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80, 84). We conclude that under the circumstances the bank employee was competent to testify on the basis of his own observations that the processing of the tape did not result in any prejudicial alteration.

The court correctly ruled that defendant had not made a prima facie case of racial discrimination by the People in exercising peremptory challenges (see, People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.