People v. ArkimPeople v. Arkim
In its charge, the trial court noted that the jury could consider whether any witness had a personal or professional interest in the outcome of the case. It is proper for a trial court to charge the jury that defendant is an interested witness (see, People v Ochs,
The evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of sodomy in the first degree under count two of the indictment. Penetration is not an essential element of forcible sodomy (see, People v Froats,
We have reviewed the other issues raised on appeal including those in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and find that none has any merit. Defendant failed to raise, either before the suppression court or at trial, the issue whether his statements to the police were obtained in violation of his right to counsel on the ground that he was represented by counsel on pending unrelated charges. Thus, that issue has not been preserved for appellate review (see,