Opinion
December 17, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Although it might be said in retrospect that the court's charge with respect to the People's burden of proof might have been "more precisely phrased, the jury, hearing the whole charge, would have gathered from its language the correct rule to have been applied in arriving at its verdict; none of the asserted imperfections were such as to warrant reversal of defendant's conviction" ( People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 832; see, also, People v. Walker, 104 A.D.2d 573; People v. Ortiz, 92 A.D.2d 595). Moreover, the trial court properly refused to charge criminal trespass in the third degree as a lesser included offense because under no reasonable view of the evidence could the jury have found that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (CPL 300.50, subds 1, 2; People v. Blim, 63 N.Y.2d 718, 720; People v. Scarborough, 49 N.Y.2d 364, 369-370; cf. People v Henderson, 41 N.Y.2d 233).
Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review by appropriate objection most of his claims that improper evidence was admitted. To the extent that these claims have been preserved and assuming, for the sake of argument, that errors were in fact committed, such errors were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt ( People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The remaining contentions are meritless and do not warrant discussion. Titone, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.