| People v Williams |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01686 [60 AD3d 709] |
| March 3, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| 90—The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Taiquan Williams, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and MerriTurk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Cooperman, J.), rendered April 12, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree,attempted robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, andtampering with physical evidence, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court erred in allowing a detective to testify that hearrested the defendant after interviews with two potential suspects who did not testify at trial isunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Martin, 261AD2d 488 [1999]; People v Elliott, 256 AD2d 418 [1998]; People v White, 210AD2d 271 [1994]; People v Cummings, 109 AD2d 748, 749-750 [1985]). In any event,any error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, whichincluded both a written and a videotaped confession, and no significant probability that thealleged error contributed to the defendant's conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d230, 241-242 [1975]; People vRuis, 11 AD3d 714 [2004]; People v Latta, 295 AD2d 449 [2002]; People vElliott, 256 AD2d 418 [1998]).
The defendant's contentions that the court erred in admitting certain testimony by thedecedent's wife and the medical examiner are unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, anyerror in admitting such testimony was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of thedefendant's guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his conviction(see generally People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969, 970 [1982]; People v Crimmins,36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]; People vNunez, 55 AD3d 756 [2008]).
The defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not err in refusing to charge the jury asto the affirmative defense to felony murder (see Penal Law § 125.25 [3]; People v Lawrence, 1 AD3d 625[2003]; People v McNeely, 222 AD2d 611 [1995]; People v Diaz, 177 AD2d 500[1991]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.