Opinion
May 1, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.).
The court properly permitted a police witness to testify that defendant changed direction upon making "eye-to-eye contact" with the witness. Rather than expressing an opinion or describing defendant's mental operations, the use of that phrase was necessary for the purpose of accurately describing the officer's actual observations ( see, People v. Hackett, 228 A.D.2d 377, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 986).
Even assuming that a "two inference" instruction was warranted in light of the above evidence, which allegedly demonstrated defendant's consciousness of guilt, we would find that the court's refusal to give such an instruction does not warrant reversal, because the court's charge as a whole gave the jury appropriate guidance ( supra), and because any consciousness of guilt evidence was a minor component of the People's case ( see, People v. Hilton, 210 A.D.2d 180, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 939).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.