People v Bodie

2015 NY Slip Op 06435 [131 AD3d 481]

August 5, 2015

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, September 23, 2015

[*1]

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dameon Bodie, Appellant.

Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Jennifer Spencer, Laurie G.Sapakoff, and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered July 31, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court provided a meaningful response to a jury note requestingclarification of the defense of justification (see People v Nash, 83 AD3d 872, 873 [2011]; see also People v Whitney, 95AD3d 1147, 1147 [2012]; People v Hayes, 48 AD3d 831, 831 [2008]).

The defendant's contention that the County Court was biased against the defense isunpreserved for appellate review (see People v Rodriguez, 111 AD3d 856, 859 [2013]). Inany event, the record does not support the defendant's contention (see id. at859).

The defendant's challenges to comments the prosecutor made in the openingstatement and during summation are unpreserved for appellate review because defensecounsel did not object to the comments (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d911, 912 [2006]; People v Arroyo, 309 AD2d 870, 871 [2003]). In anyevent, the challenged comments did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Olivo, 23 AD3d584, 584 [2005]).

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant'srequest to introduce evidence of the victim's prior conviction (see People v Wilson, 71 AD3d799, 800 [2010]).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in admitting certain photographs into evidence, as the photographs wererelevant to material issues in the case (see People v Thomas, 99 AD3d 737, 738 [2012];People v Collic, 285 AD2d 514, 515 [2001]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Eng, P.J., Hall,Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.