Opinion
November 20, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to testify on his own behalf because he did not waive this right on the record (see, People v Fratta, 83 N.Y.2d 771; People v Fagan, 203 A.D.2d 933; People v Richardson, 203 A.D.2d 932).
A photograph of the scene where the defendant shot the victim was properly admitted into evidence even though a portion of the photograph contained a bloodied sidewalk. Photographs are admissible if they tend to prove or disprove a disputed or material issue, to illustrate or elucidate other relevant evidence, or to corroborate or disprove some other evidence offered or to be offered. They should be excluded only if their sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant (see, People v Wood, 79 N.Y.2d 958, 960; People v Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 370, cert denied 416 U.S. 905). Here, the photograph showed the scene where the shooting occurred and corroborated the testimony of witnesses whose credibility had been challenged. Thus, the photograph was properly admitted (see, People v Wood, supra; People v Pobliner, supra; People v Cruz, 176 A.D.2d 953).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.