Opinion
December 11, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor was permitted to elicit the fact that he invoked his right to counsel while being questioned by a homicide detective. However, since the defendant lodged only a general objection to the prosecutor's question, his present claim that the prosecutor improperly sought to introduce this evidence to demonstrate his consciousness of guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Colavito, 70 N.Y.2d 996; People v Boyd, 58 N.Y.2d 1016; People v Blacks, 221 A.D.2d 351). In any event, while this evidence should not have been elicited, the brief reference to the fact that the defendant announced his intention to obtain a lawyer does not warrant reversal in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Douglas, 149 A.D.2d 613).
The sentence imposed was neither unduly harsh nor excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not require reversal. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.