Opinion
December 9, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Any prejudice to defendant from the prosecution witness's rebuttal testimony that he had been watching defendant at the time of the murder because defendant was a suspect in an unrelated burglary was vitiated by the witness's repeated statements that he subsequently learned that defendant was, in fact, not involved in that burglary.
Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive. Gibbons, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.