Opinion
April 4, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.).
The testimony of defendant's accomplice that defendant had introduced him to an individual, whom the accomplice had hired to commit two murders and who had absconded with the fee he was paid to kill the victim in this case, was properly admitted to establish defendant's intent and motive as well as to provide the background necessary to assist the jury in their comprehension of the crime (People v Williams, 193 A.D.2d 408, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 729). Since defendant never requested a limiting instruction regarding the appropriate use of this evidence, he will not now be heard to complain about the court's failure to give one (CPL 470.05).
The court properly instructed the jury regarding accomplice corroboration (CPL 60.22). The court was not required to give an expanded charge with respect to the identification testimony of the corroborating witness, who identified defendant from a photographic array and at a line-up (People v Perez, 164 A.D.2d 839, 840-841, affd 77 N.Y.2d 928; see, People v Jones, 202 A.D.2d 979, affd 85 N.Y.2d 823). Nor was the court required to instruct the jury that, in order to consider an accomplice's testimony, they must find it more likely than not that the corroborating evidence is true. Taken as a whole, the charge clearly advised the jury how to evaluate the corroborating evidence (People v Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624, 630; People v Fiore, 12 N.Y.2d 188, 201-202).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.