Opinion
December 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to provide a charge on the weakness of flight evidence has not been preserved for review since defense counsel never requested such charge nor excepted to the charge provided (People v Gonzalez, 198 A.D.2d 162, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 895) and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (People v Yaghnam, 135 A.D.2d 763, 764-765). In any event, the People were required to produce evidence of flight in order to prove a bail jumping charge which was ultimately dismissed.
The hypotheticals provided by the court in its circumstantial evidence charge were not similar to the facts of the instant case and did not convey to the jury the court's view of her guilt or innocence (cf., People v Hommel, 41 N.Y.2d 427).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.