Opinion
April 25, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.).
Defendant's claim of a biased, confused and poorly organized jury charge is unpreserved for appellate review by appropriate objection (see, e.g., People v. Ingram, 67 N.Y.2d 897). Although exception was taken to certain portions of the charge, supplementary charges were requested and given, and no further exception was taken. In any event, although the trial court made minor misstatements during the charge, it is clear that the charge viewed as a whole was neither inadequate, nor imbalanced, and it adequately conveyed the appropriate standards (see, e.g., People v. Adams, 69 N.Y.2d 805).
There is no merit to defendant's claim that the prosecution altered the theory of prosecution. The indictment charged, inter alia, robbery in the first degree committed by defendant and his co-defendant "acting in concert with each other and others." The People proceeded on that theory, presenting testimony of an accomplice who testified to specific acts by defendant in furtherance of the crime. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), the People fulfilled their obligation to prove the material elements of the crime as alleged in the indictment (see, e.g., People v. Charles, 61 N.Y.2d 321).
Defendant's claim that the trial court somehow coerced a verdict by giving a juror the impression that it believed defendant to be guilty is unpreserved for appellate review. As conceded by defendant, there is no factual record on this subject (People v. Charleston, 54 N.Y.2d 622).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.