Opinion
2011-11-9
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Ramel WEBB, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure of counsel), for appellant.Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, and Melissa J. Erwin of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered October 14, 2008, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in admitting his statement, allegedly made “a few weeks” before the robbery, that he knew “the perfect guy to rob in Brooklyn,” is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, any error resulting from admission of the challenged statement was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the error affected the verdict ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the People's application for a missing-witness charge ( see People v. Savinon, 100 N.Y.2d 192, 761 N.Y.S.2d 144, 791 N.E.2d 401; *354 People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 509 N.Y.S.2d 796, 502 N.E.2d 583).
The defendant's contention that the missing-witness charge was insufficient because it varied from the Pattern Jury Instructions is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Townsend, 83 A.D.3d 969, 920 N.Y.S.2d 713). In any event, the charge was sufficient, as it adequately apprised the jury of the applicable law ( see People v. Townsend, 83 A.D.3d 969, 920 N.Y.S.2d 713; People v. Calderon, 182 A.D.2d 770, 582 N.Y.S.2d 769).
MASTRO, J.P., DILLON, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.