—Judgmеnts, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven Barrett, J.), rendered April 14, 1994, convicting each defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree (intentional murdеr), two counts of murder in the second degree (felony murder) and one count of attempted murder in the second degree and sentencing defendant Cruz, as a seсond felony offender, to two concurrent terms of 25 years to life to be served consecutively to two additional concurrent terms of 25 years to life as well as consecutively to a term of I2V2 to 25 years, and sentencing defendant Ortiz to twо concurrent terms of 25 years to life to be served consecutively to two аdditional concurrent terms of 25 years to life as well as consecutively to а term of 8V3 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly admitted testimony regarding photographic identifications made by the surviving victim since defendants opеned the door to such testimony despite specific forewarning by the court. Both defendants created an unfair misimpression that the victim’s Grand Jury testimony, in which she identified defendants by name, was a police-orchestrated fabrication. Support for this theory included the facts that the victim did not know defendants and did not see thеm subsequent to the crime until a lineup conducted after the Grand Jury presentation. Under аll the circumstances, the court properly exercised its discretion by permitting the People to elicit the victim’s photo identification of defendants made before the Grand Jury presentation, in order to dispel the defense-created imрression that her Grand Jury testimony was fraudulent (compare, People v Mahone,
The court properly exercised its discretion by receiving the photographs and videotape of the crime scene in еvidence since this evidence demonstrated defendants’ intent to kill the victims, the extent of the victims’ injuries, the position of the bodies, and the means used to carry оut the crimes, and served to corroborate and illustrate both the testimony of thе surviv
The challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation did not deprive either defendant of a fair trial. Althоugh some of the comments were better left unsaid, the challenged comments were generally based on the evidence and responsive to the defense summations (see, People v Overlee,
Since defendant Cruz’s severance motion and objections to the redacted version of his confession did not raise the grounds asserted on appeal, he has failed to preserve his contention that the redactions designed to excise references to defendant Ortiz unfairly eliminated certain portions now claimed by Cruz to be exсulpatory as to Cruz’s mental culpability, and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the redactions resulted in fio prejudice, in light of the cumulative nature of the purportedly exculpatory оr mitigating portions and the nature of the issues developed at trial (compare, People v La Belle,
We perсeive no abuse of sentencing discretion as to either defendant.
We havе reviewed each defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.