Opinion
March 26, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irene J. Duffy, J.).
Although it was improper for the prosecutor to question defendant's sister about whether she knew if defendant had ever used another name, there is no reason to assume that these few questions convinced the jury not only that defendant had used other names, but that he also had a criminal record, particularly since she answered that she had never known him to do so. Given the court's proper charge that questions alone are not evidence, and that the jury could not indulge in speculation, these few questions could not have had any impact on the jury's deliberations.
Defendant's contention that remarks by two prosecution witnesses on cross-examination deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved, and, in any event, without merit. A fair reading of these remarks makes plain that they are not susceptible of the interpretation now ascribed to them by defendant. The misstatement by the prosecutor in summation, to which defendant did not object, was immediately corrected sua sponte by the court. No further relief was requested, nor was any necessary (People v Bergsma, 170 A.D.2d 408, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 992).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Smith, JJ.