Opinion
July 6, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's failure to join in the codefendant's objection to the trial court's identification charge renders her arguments unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Hesterbey, 134 A.D.2d 615; People v. Rodriguez, 130 A.D.2d 522; People v. McCorkle, 119 A.D.2d 700; see also, People v. Teeter, 47 N.Y.2d 1002). In any event, the trial court's identification charge was adequate under the circumstances of this case since the trial court instructed the jury that identification had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and provided the jury with general instructions on weighing a witness's credibility (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273; People v Rodriguez, supra; People v. Martinez, 118 A.D.2d 661). Contrary to the contention of the defendant, the trial court's statement that the jury was "to determine where the truth lies" did not dilute the People's burden of proof when the charge was considered as a whole (see, People v. Jones, 173 A.D.2d 487; People v. Flecha, 161 A.D.2d 116; People v. Graziano, 151 A.D.2d 775). Further, the trial court did not err in advising the jury not to indulge in "speculation", or "conjecture" (see, People v. Hammond, 143 A.D.2d 1043; People v. Mustafa, 126 A.D.2d 674).
We find that the sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Eiber, JJ., concur.