People v. TisdalePeople v. Tisdale
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly replaced two sworn jurors with alternate jurors (see, CPL 270.35 [1]). During the middle of the trial, one of the jurors at issue sent a message that she had to stay home with her ill seven-month-old infant and did not know whether she would be able to return to court the next day. Under those circumstances, the court was within its discretion in concluding that the juror was unavailable for continued service (see, CPL 270.35 [1]; People v Sheldon,
Defendant contends that the court erred in allowing an officer to testify as an expert in the identification of drugs. The qualification of an expert is within the discretion of the court, and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion here (see, People v Page,