| People v Handel |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 08754 [133 AD3d 879] |
| November 25, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Timothy Handel, Appellant. |
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
David M. Hoover, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County(Berry, J.), rendered July 3, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree andtampering with physical evidence (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
CPL 20.20 (2) (a), which relates to the geographical jurisdiction of New York State,contains a presumption in certain homicide cases that the death of the victim occurred inNew York State when "the victim's body or a part thereof" was found here. On thisappeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in its charges as to geographicaljurisdiction, both in its initial charge and in the supplemental charges in response to jurynotes. To the extent that the defendant contends that the court improperly marshaled theevidence in its supplemental instructions relating to geographical jurisdiction, his claim iswithout merit, as the court's marshaling was fair (see People v Saunders, 64NY2d 665, 667 [1984]). To the extent that the defendant now contends that the court'sinstructions on the issue were otherwise flawed, his claims are unpreserved for appellatereview (cf. People v Taylor, 26 NY3d 217, 222-224 [2015]). At trial, the defendant did not bring those alleged deficiencies tothe court's attention, but merely reiterated his original objection to the delivery of anyinstruction as to the presumption contained in CPL 20.20 (2) (a) (see People vHoke, 62 NY2d 1022, 1023-1024 [1984]; People v Reyes, 76 AD3d 864, 865-866 [2010]; Peoplev Staton, 124 AD2d 687, 687 [1986]). We decline to review these contentions in theexercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's cross-examinationof him (cf. People v Sivels,114 AD3d 708, 709 [2014]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro sesupplemental brief, are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Roman, JJ.,concur.