People v. Howard

Dec 30, 1999
Versions:267 A.D.2d 1006
700 N.Y.S.2d 899
1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13750

Lead Opinion

*1007the court violated CPL 310.30 by failing to disclose the contents of two jury notes (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). The court read the notes in open court before responding to them, and “[d]efendant did not lodge any objection to the manner of proceeding or the substance of the court’s responses” (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 514; see, People v DePillo, 262 AD2d 996, lv denied 93 NY2d 1044; People v Fontanez, 254 AD2d 762, 763, lv denied 93 NY2d 852). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant’s remaining contentions concerning the trial are not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present— Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.





Lead Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [1]). We conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495) and that Supreme Court properly allowed the prosecutor to impeach defendant on cross-examination with suppressed statements made by defendant at the time of his arrest (see, People v Dansa, 172 AD2d 1011, 1012, lv denied 78 NY2d 964). Defendant did not preserve for our review his contention that