Opinion
April 21, 1986
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Leggett, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The denial of the defendant's application to represent himself, which was initially made during the course of the trial, and his subsequent removal from the courtroom during portions of the trial, were justified by his disruptive and obstreperous conduct (see, Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337; People v. McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Johnson, 45 A.D.2d 1030, affd 37 N.Y.2d 778; People v. Lundy, 104 A.D.2d 384; People v. Saccomanno, 83 A.D.2d 843). We also note that the trial court charged the jury that "[the] alibi evidence, which the defendant has placed before you, seeks to convince you that the defendant was elsewhere" and that "[w]hether you believe that he was or was not so present * * * is for you to decide on the basis of whether or not you believe the alibi witness". This language may have been wrongly interpreted by the jury as shifting the burden of proof with respect to the alibi defense away from the People and to the defendant (see, People v. Victor, 62 N.Y.2d 374; People v. Jiminez, 111 A.D.2d 832; People v. Lee, 110 A.D.2d 913; People v. Chestnut, 99 A.D.2d 515). However, because no objection was raised to the alibi charge at the trial, the error is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, reversal in the interest of justice is inappropriate.
We have considered all of the defendant's other claims, and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.