| People v Forward |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10413 [46 AD3d 1222] |
| December 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DustinForward, Appellant. |
—[*1] Donald F. Cerio Jr., District Attorney, Wampsville (David E. Russell of counsel), forrespondent.
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (DiStefano,J.), rendered September 21, 2006, upon a verdict convicting defendant of two counts of the crimeof criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.
After admitting to a police investigator that he stole several ceremonial rifles from a Veteransof Foreign Wars building in the Town of Lenox, Madison County, defendant was charged in anindictment with burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminalpossession of stolen property in the fourth degree (five counts), and criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fifth degree. Prior to trial, County Court dismissed three counts of criminalpossession of stolen property in the fourth degree due to the People's failure to demonstrate thatany of the rifles was operable (see Penal Law § 165.45 [4]). At the close oftestimony, the court further converted the charge of grand larceny in the fourth degree to petitlarceny, dismissed an additional count of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourthdegree, and converted the remaining count of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourthdegree to criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. The jury ultimately convicteddefendant of two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree andacquitted him of the burglary in the third degree and petit larceny charges. Defendant wasthereafter sentenced to one year in the county jail, and he now appeals.[*2]
We affirm. Defendant concedes that his argumentsregarding County Court's instructions to the jury are not preserved inasmuch as he did not objectto the court's charge on the ground now asserted before us (see People v O'Hara, 96NY2d 378, 383-384 [2001]; People vZakrzewski, 7 AD3d 823, 824 [2004]). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case,we conclude that reversal in the interest of justice is unwarranted.
Turning to the merits of defendant's sole remaining argument, we reject his assertion thatCounty Court committed reversible error in admitting a written report of his purported oralconfession following the testimony of a police investigator regarding that confession. The oraladmission had been reduced to a written report by the investigator the day after defendant hadbeen interrogated, and the report was not signed by defendant. While the admission of the writtenreport was not necessary to rebut any evidence introduced by defendant and, thus, constitutedimproper bolstering, we find that the error was harmless here (see People v Tejeda, 73NY2d 958, 960 [1989]; cf. People v Seit, 86 NY2d 92, 95-96 [1995]; see also Peoplev Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).
Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.