Summary
holding that the defendant's contention that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jury's sympathy by eliciting gruesome testimony about the dismemberment of the body was not preserved for appellate review and that the plaintiff's remaining contentions were also unpreserved for appellate review
Summary of this case from Harris v. ArtusOpinion
2002-05570.
Decided June 7, 2004.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered May 20, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (De Nice Powell of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Richard Schmedake of counsel), for respondent.
Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant murdered his longtime friend with a machete. With the help of his girlfriend, the defendant decapitated and dismembered the body, put the body parts in garbage bags, and discarded the bags in the ocean near Coney Island
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jury's sympathy by eliciting gruesome testimony from his girlfriend about the dismemberment of the body is not preserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05). In any event, the defendant's argument is without merit. The nature and manner of the dismemberment and disposal of the body were material and relevant to the prosecution of the murder indictment and the defendant could not avoid the graphic testimony by admitting that he had killed the victim but contending that he had done so under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance ( see People v. Wood, 79 N.Y.2d 958). The challenged testimony illustrated the deliberate and calculated nature of the defendant's conduct immediately after the murder and tended to disprove his claim that he was totally out of control at the time of the killing ( see People v. Wood, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.
PRUDENTI, P.J., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and SPOLZINO, JJ., concur.