People v. Odome
| Decision Date | 26 April 1993 |
| Citation | 596 N.Y.S.2d 855,192 A.D.2d 725 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Eric ODOME, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Andrea Hirsch, of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Odome, pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Robin A. Forshaw, and Charles D. Day, of counsel; Mark Schwartz, on the brief), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and RITTER, COPERTINO and SANTUCCI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered February 25, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the court's instructions regarding his failure to testify. However, since no objection was made, this claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836, 552 N.Y.S.2d 908, 552 N.E.2d 156). In any event, we find that the court's charge did not constitute reversible error. The charge was neutral in tone, consistent in substance with the intent of the statute, not so lengthy as to prejudicially draw the jury's attention to the issue, and did not imply that the failure to testify was merely a trial maneuver rather than a constitutional right (see, People v. Gardner, 182 A.D.2d 638, 582 N.Y.S.2d 248; People v. Gonzalez, 167 A.D.2d 556, 562 N.Y.S.2d 226; People v. Ogle, 142 A.D.2d 608, 530 N.Y.S.2d 263).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pierre
...that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contentions are not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Odome, 192 A.D.2d 725, 596 N.Y.S.2d 855; People v. Pride, 173 A.D.2d 651, 570 N.Y.S.2d 227; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9), and, in any event......
-
People v. Gargano
...his failure to testify denied him a fair trial (see, People v. Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836, 552 N.Y.S.2d 908, 552 N.E.2d 156; People v. Odome, 192 A.D.2d 725, 596 N.Y.S.2d 855). In any event, the court's charge, while unnecessarily expansive, was neutral in tone, consistent with the intent of CPL ......
-
People v. Williams
...and was not so extensive as to prejudicially draw the jury's attention to the defendant's failure to testify (see, People v. Odome, 192 A.D.2d 725, 596 N.Y.S.2d 855; see also, People v. Pride, 173 A.D.2d 651, 570 N.Y.S.2d ...
-
People v. Bailey
...was a trial maneuver rather than a constitutional right (see, People v. Pierre, 215 A.D.2d 599, 627 N.Y.S.2d 66; People v. Odome, 192 A.D.2d 725, 596 N.Y.S.2d 855; People v. Gardner, 182 A.D.2d 638, 639, 582 N.Y.S.2d 248). Thus, the instruction did not constitute reversible The defendant's ......