Opinion
September 18, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J.).
Absent some basis for suppression (CPL 710.20), the mere fact that defendant was surprised by the introduction of his own inculpatory statements, during the People's redirect examination of the complaining witness, provides no basis to upset the conviction in this case. Defense counsel opened the door to the introduction of such statements by cross-examining the complainant with respect to her conversation with the defendant shortly after his apprehension (see, People v. Wortherly, 68 A.D.2d 158 [1st Dept 1979]), and there is no indication that the People knew of such statements or intended to offer them before the fact of their introduction at trial.
In addition, although the trial court in this case should have instructed the jury that flight is the weakest indication of the crime charged (People v. Yazum, 13 N.Y.2d 302, 304-305; People v Limage, 57 A.D.2d 906), such error does not warrant reversal in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.
We find defendant's remaining arguments to be without merit.
Concur — Ross, J.P., Rosenberger, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.