From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Coico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 30, 1991
176 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

September 30, 1991

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence corroborating the accomplice testimony was legally insufficient to support the burglary convictions. However, as the defendant failed to move in the trial court for dismissal on this specific ground, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Sutton, 161 A.D.2d 612; People v. Lyons, 154 A.D.2d 715).

The defendant also contends that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury to consider whether the defendant's former girlfriend was an accomplice with respect to one of the burglaries as a question of fact (see, CPL 60.22). However, since the defendant made no request to charge and took no exception to the court's charge, the alleged error is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Aleschus, 55 N.Y.2d 775; People v. Lipton, 54 N.Y.2d 340).

The defendant's claim that he is entitled to a new trial because of the People's delay in producing a recorded conversation between a People's witness and a defense witness is without merit. The record reveals that the defendant was not substantially prejudiced by the delay (cf., People v. Thompson, 71 N.Y.2d 918; People v. Perez, 65 N.Y.2d 154). The defense counsel's requests for an adjournment, a further opportunity to cross-examine the People's witness, and to play the entire tape to the jury were granted. Because the defense counsel withdrew his application to play the entire tape, and withdrew his application for further cross-examination of the People's witness after listening to the tape, any alleged error was waived.

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review them (see, People v. Tardbania, 72 N.Y.2d 852, 853; People v. Oliver, 63 N.Y.2d 973; People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Coico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 30, 1991
176 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Coico

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH COICO, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 30, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
574 N.Y.S.2d 775

Citing Cases

People v. Polhill

Since the defendant failed to specifically request an accomplice instruction or to object to the trial…

People v. Nichilo

The defendant did not preserve for appellate review his claim that the court erred in failing to charge the…