Summary
finding that "any error in the court's charge, which did include a reading of the statutory provision delineating the elements of accessorial liability . . . as well as detailed definitions of the requisite mental states for the crimes charged, was harmless. . . ."
Summary of this case from Lugo v. KuhlmannOpinion
July 14, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court's instructions to the jury with respect to accessorial liability and the elements of the crimes charged were inadequate insofar as they failed to emphasize that the defendant had to be found to have acted with the requisite mental culpability (see, Penal Law § 20.00). This claim of legal error is unpreserved for our review as defense counsel did not request a charge on accessorial liability, nor was an exception taken to the court's charge as given (see, CPL 470.05; People v Campbell, 86 A.D.2d 403). In any event, any error in the court's charge, which did include a reading of the statutory provision delineating the elements of accessorial liability (see, Penal Law § 20.00), as well as detailed definitions of the requisite mental states for the crimes charged, was harmless in light of both the strong evidence of the defendant's guilt and the fact that the credible evidence adduced at the trial showed that the defendant himself engaged in conduct constituting the offenses of which he was convicted (see, People v Newton, 120 A.D.2d 751; People v Campbell, supra).
The sentence imposed upon the defendant was well within the bounds of the sentencing court's discretion, and, under the circumstances presented in this case, we do not perceive of any basis upon which to disturb it (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Niehoff, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.