Opinion
5626
December 13, 2001.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered January 10, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 18 years, unanimously affirmed.
Susan Axelrod, for respondent.
Daniel A. Warshawsky, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Sullivan, P.J., Rosenberger, Williams, Tom, Friedman, JJ.
The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the testimony of a blood spatter analysis expert. The expert clearly testified that his analysis was not based solely on common sense, but also included professional or technical knowledge beyond the knowledge of the typical juror (see, People v. Miller, 91 N.Y.2d 372, 379-380; People v. Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277, 288; see also, Grinstead v. State, 684 N.E.2d 482, 486-487 [Ind 1997]). Although defendant contends that the court erred in admitting such testimony because blood spatter analysis has not gained general acceptance in the scientific community, the procedures involved in such analysis do not involve novel scientific techniques, and, therefore, there was no issue as to the validity of the techniques utilized and no Frye hearing (Frye v. United States, 293 F 1013) was necessary (see, People v. Abdul, 244 A.D.2d 237, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 939,cert denied 525 U.S. 880; see also, People v. Clark, 5 Cal.4th 950, 1017-1020, cert denied 512 U.S. 1253; People v. Haywood, 209 Mich. App. 217, 221-225, lv denied 450 Mich. 931). Moreover, we agree with the conclusion reached by the Fourth Department and courts of other jurisdictions that blood spatter evidence is scientifically reliable (People v. Barnes, 267 A.D.2d 1020, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 832; People v. Haywood, supra). Defendant's remaining challenges to this evidence go to its weight, not its admissibility (see, People v. Miller, 91 N.Y.2d 372, 379-380, supra).
Defendant failed to preserve his contentions that the prosecutor violated the court's Molineux ruling during cross-examination and summation and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the cross-examination and summation properly responded to issues raised by defendant (see, People v. Donaldson, 249 A.D.2d 109, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 896). The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation (see,People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714), and counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's appropriate cross-examination and summation did not constitute ineffective assistance.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.