Opinion
April 17, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although the Supreme Court should have sustained defense counsel's objection to a question asked of the defendant by the prosecutor as to whether he had gone to the precinct with an attorney because he was innocent (see, People v. Al-Kanani, 26 N.Y.2d 473; People v. Collins, 140 A.D.2d 186), we find that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and the limited nature of the prosecutor's questioning which did not form a persistent pattern of misconduct (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). The record reveals that there were four eyewitnesses to the shooting all of whom disputed the defendant's version of the facts.
Additionally, the defendant contends that the court's charge on the defense of justification failed to instruct the jury that even if they found that the People had disproved such defense, the People were still required to prove each of the elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Since no objection was made to the charge provided, this issue has not been preserved for our review (CPL 470.05; People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467; People v. Norwood, 133 A.D.2d 423; People v. Ecock, 124 A.D.2d 672, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 710). In any event, the court's charge, taken as a whole, sufficiently instructed the jury as to the People's burden of proof and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (People v. Richburg, 109 A.D.2d 899). The defendant's contention is therefore without merit. Rubin, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.