| People v Din |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04260 [62 AD3d 1023] |
| May 26, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kabeer Din, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Karla Lato and Michael Blakey ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.),rendered May 16, 2007, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Prior to voir dire, the People made an application to amend the indictment to change thedescription of the person targeted in the alleged conspiracy from "girlfriend" to "intendedvictim." Under the circumstances, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in grantingthat application (see CPL 200.70; People v George, 217 AD2d 987, 988 [1995];People v Ames, 115 AD2d 543, 544 [1985]; People v Cruz, 285 App Div 1076[1955]).
During voir dire, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in declining to posecertain questions drafted by defense counsel to the prospective jurors (see CPL 270.15[1] [b]; People v Parks, 257 AD2d 636, 637 [1999], affd 95 NY2d 811 [2000]).Furthermore, defense counsel was provided a fair opportunity to ask the prospective jurorsrelevant and material questions (see CPL 270.15 [1] [c]; cf. People v Thompson, 45 AD3d876, 877 [2007]).
To the extent that the prosecutor misstated the law regarding conspiracy during voir dire, itdid not constitute reversible error. Since the trial court repeatedly advised the prospective jurors,as well as the seated jurors, that it would instruct them on the law, the prosecutor's statementscould not have been interpreted by the jury as an instruction on the law (cf. People v Giuca, 58 AD3d 750,751 [2009]; People v Delphin, 26AD3d 343 [2006]; People v Rosenblitt, 198 AD2d 382, 383 [1993]).
The issue of whether the affirmative defense of entrapment was established was an issue offact for the jury (see People v McGee, 49 NY2d 48, 60-61 [1979], cert denied subnom. Waters v New York, 446 US 942 [1980]; People v Wicht, 48 AD3d 491 [2008]; People v Castro,299 AD2d 557, 558 [2002]; People v Lopez, 242 AD2d 641 [1997]). Sufficient evidencewas adduced at the trial from which the jury could properly conclude that the defendant was notactively induced and was predisposed to commit the offense charged (see People vWicht, 48 [*2]AD3d at 491; People v Castro, 299AD2d at 558; People v Lopez, 242 AD2d at 641).
The defendant's contention that the conduct of the investigators was so egregious as to havedenied him due process of law is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];cf. CPL 210.40 [1] [e]) and, in any event, is without merit (see People vKubasek, 167 AD2d 424 [1990]; People v Spivey, 151 AD2d 521, 522 [1989];cf. People v Isaacson, 44 NY2d 511, 520-521 [1978]). Spolzino, J.P., Covello, Angiolilloand Dickerson, JJ., concur.