Opinion
April 18, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.).
Defendant did not preserve by objection his current claims that he was denied his rights to confrontation, to counsel, and to present a defense when the court sustained an objection to a question posed to the arresting officer as to whether a warrant had been obtained to search defendant's home (CPL 470.05; People v Iannelli, 69 N.Y.2d 684, cert denied 482 U.S. 914). In any event, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting questioning on a collateral issue (see, People v Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198), and counsel made it abundantly clear to the jury that no physical evidence was recovered in this case.
The trial court also properly sustained the prosecutor's objections to defense counsel's suggestions to the jurors in summation that they ask themselves if the case would be easier to determine if defendant had been identified in a lineup, or if the police had obtained a warrant to search defendant's home. These comments did not address any evidence before the jury and improperly suggested that the jurors engage in speculation in their deliberations (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396). In this connection, the trial court properly instructed the jury that the appropriate standard was proof beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the nature and quality of the evidence or lack of evidence in the case.
The prosecutor's submission to the jury in summation that the police conducted a prudent investigation in this case constituted appropriate response to the defense summation argument that the police arrested defendant on the complainant's questionable identification and that the police investigation was "just a little bit sloppy" (People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 362 U.S. 912).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.