People v. ReidPeople v. Reid
The defendant contends that the prosecution failed to prove that a police officer sustained a “physical injury” within the meaning of
The defendant‘s contention that the court erred in its Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to object to the ruling which merely allowed the prosecutor to ask, if the defendant chose to testify, about the existence of prior felony convictions without eliciting the underlying facts (see People v Polk, 284 AD2d 416, 417 [2001]; People v Townley, 245 AD2d 322 [1997]). In any event, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in so ruling (see People v Springer, 13 AD3d 657, 658 [2004]; People v Carrasquillo, 204 AD2d 735 [1994]).
The court properly declined to charge the jury on involuntary intoxication as there was no evidence that the defendant‘s ingestion of prescription medication with codeine was against his will, as required (see 1 CJI [NY] 9.45, at 515). In any event, no reasonable view of the evidence supported the involuntary intoxication defense (see People v Caballero, 160 AD2d 810 [1990]).
The defendant‘s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Krausman and Dillon, JJ., concur.