Opinion
2012-08531
08-05-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Dameon BODIE, appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Jennifer Spencer, Laurie G. Sapakoff, and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant.
Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Jennifer Spencer, Laurie G. Sapakoff, and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered July 31, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court provided a meaningful response to a jury note requesting clarification of the defense of justification (see People v. Nash, 83 A.D.3d 872, 873, 920 N.Y.S.2d 697 ; see also People v. Whitney, 95 A.D.3d 1147, 1147, 943 N.Y.S.2d 785 ; People v. Hayes, 48 A.D.3d 831, 831, 851 N.Y.S.2d 365 ).
The defendant's contention that the County Court was biased against the defense is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Rodriguez, 111 A.D.3d 856, 859, 975 N.Y.S.2d 132 ). In any event, the record does not support the defendant's contention (see id. at 859, 975 N.Y.S.2d 132 ).
The defendant's challenges to comments the prosecutor made in the opening statement and during summation are unpreserved for appellate review because defense counsel did not object to the comments (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 ; People v. Arroyo, 309 A.D.2d 870, 871, 766 N.Y.S.2d 51 ). In any event, the challenged comments did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Olivo, 23 A.D.3d 584, 584, 806 N.Y.S.2d 594 ).
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request to introduce evidence of the victim's prior conviction (see People v. Wilson, 71 A.D.3d 799, 800, 896 N.Y.S.2d 419 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting certain photographs into evidence, as the photographs were relevant to material issues in the case (see People v. Thomas, 99 A.D.3d 737, 738, 951 N.Y.S.2d 581 ; People v. Collic, 285 A.D.2d 514, 515, 728 N.Y.S.2d 487 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
ENG, P.J., HALL, HINDS–RADIX and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.