Opinion
October 20, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dubin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is without merit. The eyewitness and medical testimony adduced at trial clearly established the defendant's culpability in the death of the victim. Moreover, the jury was aware of the contradictory versions of the shooting testified to by the defendant and the People's witnesses and decided the credibility issue in favor of the People. The jury's conclusion that the justification defense was disproven beyond a reasonable doubt was proper (see, People v Thomas, 115 A.D.2d 674). Thus, the jury's verdict should not now be disturbed (see, People v Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196; People v Reynolds, 107 A.D.2d 724).
As no objection was advanced at trial to the alleged impropriety of the trial court's instructions to the jury concerning the justification defense, this issue has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886; People v Gonzalez, 80 A.D.2d 543). In any event, despite the defendant's claim to the contrary, it is proper to include an objective element in a justification charge (see, People v Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96).
Likewise, the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel is meritless. "Reasonable professional judgments by appellate attorneys as to what are the most promising issues on appeal should not be second-guessed" (People v Ramos, 108 A.D.2d 209, 213).
Finally, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.