From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. McLane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1998
256 A.D.2d 10 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

holding that defendant who "fail[ed] to elaborate on the basis for his objection to the court's charge on justification . . . failed to provide the court with a fair opportunity to rectify any error and failed to preserve the issue for appellate review" under § 470.05

Summary of this case from Green v. Travis

Opinion

December 1, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.).


Defendant's motion to suppress his videotaped statement was properly denied. We see no reason to disturb the hearing court's determination to credit the detectives' testimony that they did not facilitate, or even know of, defendant's consumption of alcohol before questioning him ( People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761). The People met their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that, under the totality of the circumstances, defendant's videotaped statement was unaffected by alcohol, and was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made ( see, People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, cert denied 389 U.S. 874; People v. Morales, 210 A.D.2d 173, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1035).

The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding the defense from presenting the testimony of certain expert and lay witnesses since their proposed testimony was either remote from the issues to be determined at trial or was information within the "ken of the typical juror" ( De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 307; see also, People v. Robles, 173 A.D.2d 337, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1014).

By failing to elaborate on the basis for his objection to the court's charge on justification, defendant failed to provide the court with a fair opportunity to rectify any error and failed to preserve the issue for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v. Jackson, 76 N.Y.2d 908), and we decline to review his present claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that, viewed as a whole, the court's charge, conveyed the proper legal principles.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. McLane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1998
256 A.D.2d 10 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

holding that defendant who "fail[ed] to elaborate on the basis for his objection to the court's charge on justification . . . failed to provide the court with a fair opportunity to rectify any error and failed to preserve the issue for appellate review" under § 470.05

Summary of this case from Green v. Travis
Case details for

People v. McLane

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES McLANE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 1, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 10 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
682 N.Y.S.2d 24

Citing Cases

Whyte v. Ercole

"New York courts consistently interpret § 470.05(2) to require that a defendant specify the grounds of…

Weathers v. Conway

Under caselaw applying New York's contemporaneous objection rule, this generalized motion was not sufficient…