Opinion
December 7, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.).
Defendant's current claims of improper admission of evidence of his pre-arrest silence are unpreserved (CPL 470.05). In any event, defendant's evasive answers were properly admitted as evidence of his consciousness of guilt ( People v Holland, 174 A.D.2d 508, 509-510, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1011). As additional reference to defendant's pre-trial silence was strategically elicited by defense counsel on direct examination of the defense witnesses, the prosecutor properly addressed the matter on cross-examination of those witnesses ( People v Lewis, 177 A.D.2d 421, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 949).
The court's justification charge as a whole conveyed the appropriate legal principles ( People v Powell, 168 A.D.2d 393, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 972), and it is clear from the record that the jury duly considered the defense. In this connection, the trial court's response to the jury's request for a definition of the term "retreat" was an appropriate and meaningful response ( see, People v Ellis, 183 A.D.2d 534, 536, affd 81 N.Y.2d 854).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Defendant's additional claims of error are both unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.