Opinion
April 14, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The prosecutor's statement during his summation that the trial was "a search for the truth * * * not a search for the reasonable doubt" was improper (People v. Brown, 111 A.D.2d 248, 250). However, in view of the court's subsequent extensive instructions on the presumption of innocence, the prosecution's burden of proof, and the meaning of "reasonable doubt", and the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, no substantial prejudice to the defendant resulted, and the error was rendered harmless (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399; People v Robinson, 83 A.D.2d 887).
When exceptions to the charge were solicited by the court, the defendant specifically stated that he had none. Thus, he failed to preserve for appellate review his present claim that the absence of a detailed charge of how to assess the identification evidence was error (see, People v. Scott, 108 A.D.2d 882, 883; People v. McLaughlin, 104 A.D.2d 829, 830). Similarly, the defendant did not raise at trial his present claim that the testimony as to the complainant's description of his assailant to Police Officer Freeman was inadmissible hearsay which improperly bolstered the complainant's identification testimony. The defense counsel's stating the one word "Objection" when the prosecutor asked Officer Freeman to recount the complainant's description was insufficient to preserve this issue for appellate review (see, People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1025; People v. West, 56 N.Y.2d 662). Under the circumstances, review in the interest of justice is unwarranted. Lazer, J.P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.