From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 1990
161 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 21, 1990

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Initially, we note that the hearing court did not err in refusing to suppress the defendant's confession. Although the defendant contends that he did not voluntarily waive his right to remain silent, this claim is in direct contradiction with the testimony of the arresting detectives, whose testimony the hearing court credited. Keeping in mind that much weight is to be accorded to the determination of the hearing court and that its findings are not to be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v Bucknor, 140 A.D.2d 705), we cannot conclude from this record that the hearing court erred in crediting the detectives' testimony over that of the defendant (see, People v. Roth, 139 A.D.2d 605).

The defendant further claims that the trial court failed to deliver preliminary instructions to the jury pursuant to CPL 270.40. Most of these instructions were eventually given, albeit not in the time or manner mandated by this provision. However, inasmuch as the defendant did not object to the court's noncompliance, this claim of error is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v. Hickey, 133 A.D.2d 421), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.15 [a]).

Further, the trial court properly admitted into evidence several photographs depicting the murder victim. Photographs of a homicide victim are admissible if they tend to show the victim's body or wounds, or to illustrate expert testimony (People v Bell, 63 N.Y.2d 796; People v. Harris, 149 A.D.2d 433). Here, the photographs of the decedent were admitted to show the body as well as to corroborate the testimony of the Medical Examiner. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, there is no indication that these photographs were admitted for the sole purpose of arousing the emotions of the jury (see, People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, cert denied 416 U.S. 905).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v. Ross, 158 A.D.2d 560; People v. Boettcher, 69 N.Y.2d 174; People v. Bush, 112 A.D.2d 1046). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 1990
161 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANSON MOORE, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 21, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

People v. Walls

Although the police conduct involved a measure of guile, it was not so fundamentally unfair as to deprive the…

People v. Robinson

In any event, such instructions eventually were given and adequately conveyed to the jury its function,…