People v. Santiago
| Decision Date | 17 June 1993 |
| Citation | 599 N.Y.S.2d 959,194 A.D.2d 428 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose SANTIAGO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered May 6, 1992, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed. Defendant failed to object or take exception to any of the trial court's rulings he now claims were erroneous and prejudicial, and thus failed to preserve his claims for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05). In any event, the evidence against defendant was overwhelming, and a review of the record as a whole indicates that, despite certain comments of the trial court that might better have been left unsaid, the jury was not prevented from arriving at an impartial judgment on the merits (People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 946, 403 N.Y.S.2d 892, 374 N.E.2d 1243). In this connection, defendant's claim that his trial counsel was accorded disparate treatment by the trial court is belied by counsel's failure to enter any objection, or to move for a mistrial on such ground (see, People v. Tucker, 140 A.D.2d 887, 892, 528 N.Y.S.2d 705, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 913, 532 N.Y.S.2d 762, 528 N.E.2d 1235). Defendant's challenge to the trial court's expanded no adverse inference charge is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, and we find no reason to review in the interest of justice. The charge did not impermissibly comment on any failure of defendant to offer sworn testimony, it conveyed the appropriate legal principle, and the minor expansion on the statutory language would not merit reversal (People v. Alexander, 168 A.D.2d 297, 562 N.Y.S.2d 938). We have considered defendant's additional claims of error and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit..
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salcedo v. Artuz
...trial court because the expansion of the standard charge was minor. See Salcedo, 666 N.Y.S.2d at 174 (citing People v. Santiago, 194 A.D.2d 428, 599 N.Y.S.2d 959 (1st Dep't 1993)). A claim may be procedurally barred if the state court decision rested on an independent and adequate state law......
- People v. Osborne
- Monique T., Matter of
-
People v. Salcedo
...review them, we would find that the court's minor expansion on the statutory language does not warrant reversal (see, People v. Santiago, 194 A.D.2d 428, 599 N.Y.S.2d 959, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 759, 603 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 624 N.E.2d The court lawfully sentenced defendant to consecutive terms for......