People v. BrownPeople v. Brown
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, there was a sufficient factual predicate to support a jury instruction on consciousness of guilt (see People v Arriaga, 77 AD3d 846, 847 [2010]; People v Solimini, 69 AD3d 657, 658 [2010]). There was evidence presented at trial indicating that after the subject robbery was committed the defendant went home and altered his appearance by changing his clothes before going out again (see People v Sage, 23 NY3d 16, 26 [2014]; People v Sabines, 121 AD3d 1409, 1410 [2014]). The defendant‘s further argument that the language of the consciousness-of-guilt charge was improper and misleading is unpreserved for appellate review (see
The defendant‘s contention that the County Court erred by instructing the jury as to an alibi defense is waived because the court granted the defendant‘s request to provide this charge to the jury (see People v Ford, 62 NY2d 275, 283 [1984]; People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 280 [1983]).
The defendant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Balkin, J.P., Roman, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.