People v. RobinsonPeople v. Robinson
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant‘s contention that the court erred in failing, in its charge, to elaborate on the meaning of “forcible stealing” is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to request such a charge, object to the charge as delivered, or request supplemental instructions (see
In any event, any error in the trial court‘s charge was harm
Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.