People v Odubogun
2007 NYSlipOp 00683
January 30, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 14, 2007


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Temitope Odubogun, Appellant.

[*1]Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Allen Fallek of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Camille O'Hara Gillespie, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP[Michael J. Balch] of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered June 14, 2005, convicting him of murder 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 contentions regarding the prosecutor's reference during his opening statement to a witness who ultimately refused to testify, and regarding the admission of testimony of a detective that, after conducting interviews at the crime scene, he suspected the defendant of committing the murder and that he arrested the defendant after a witness viewed a lineup, are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Barboza, 24 AD3d 460, 461 [2005]; People v Boatswain, 8 AD3d 673, 674 [2004]; People v Thompson, 276 AD2d 811 [2000]).

In any event, the defendant's claims with respect to the opening statement and the testimony about when the defendant became a suspect are without merit (see People v De Tore, 34 NY2d 199, 207 [1974], cert denied sub nom. Wedra v New York, 419 US 1025 [1974]; People v Nicholas, 1 AD3d 614 [2003]), and any error in the admission of the testimony about the arrest after the lineup was harmless (see People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584, 585 [1982]).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Counsel pursued a viable misidentification defense throughout the trial. Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant [*2]received meaningful representation (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 566 [2000]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Skelos and Fisher, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.