| People v Fowler |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08545 [101 AD3d 898] |
| December 12, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JoelFowler, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Lori Glachman ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice,J.), rendered November 24, 2009, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, ofthat branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress certain statements he madeto law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that certain statements he made to law enforcement officials shouldhave been suppressed. However, the specific arguments asserted by the defendant on appeal tosupport this contention are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Vasquez, 66 NY2d 968, 970 [1985], cert denied 475 US 1109 [1986];People v Maxis, 50 AD3d 922,923 [2008]; People v Rogers, 34AD3d 504, 505 [2006]). Moreover, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony tochallenge a suppression ruling where, as here, he failed to request a reopening of the suppressionhearing (see People v Abrew, 95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]; People v Cortez, 81 AD3d 742,742 [2011]; People v Maxis, 50 AD3d at 923; People v McFarlane, 18 AD3d 577, 578 [2005]). In any event, thedefendant's contention is without merit (see People v Petronio, 34 AD3d 602, 604 [2006]; People vMiller, 268 AD2d 600, 600-601 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly declinedto suppress the statements in question.
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he or she reasonably believessuch to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or shereasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force by such other person.A court need not charge the defense of justification if, considering the record in the light mostfavorable to the defendant, no reasonable view of the evidence supports it" (People v Ojar, 38 AD3d 684,684-685 [2007] [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). Contrary to the defendant'scontention, the Supreme Court properly denied his request to charge the jury regarding thejustification defense, as no reasonable view of the evidence supported such a charge (seePeople v Long, 259 AD2d 634 [1999]).[*2]
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see Peoplev Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86 [1982]). Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.[Prior Case History: 25 Misc 3d 1222(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 52239(U).]