Opinion
March 23, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence adduced at the trial, viewed in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Shapiro, 117 A.D.2d 688; People v. Bauer, 113 A.D.2d 543, 548), demonstrates that the defendant and an accomplice robbed two service station employees at gunpoint, and subsequently shot a third man to death when he entered the station office during the commission of the robbery. Accordingly, we find that the People satisfied their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the crimes of which the defendant was convicted. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence was of sufficient quality and quantity to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, CPL 470.15).
We further find that an Assistant District Attorney was improperly permitted to testify that a complaint and a warrant were issued against the defendant for his arrest after a lineup in which he appeared had been conducted. This testimony raised the inference that the complaining witness had identified the defendant at the lineup and, as such, constituted inferential bolstering (see, People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471; People v Hall, 82 A.D.2d 838). However, we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as the evidence of identity is so strong that there is no serious issue upon the point (see, People v. Mobley, 56 N.Y.2d 584, 585; cf., People v. Grate, 122 A.D.2d 853, 854; People v. Williams, 109 A.D.2d 906, 907). Finally, the trial court's refusal to give a detailed identification charge was not error inasmuch as the charge properly conveyed to the jury the People's burden to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt, and the general factors relevant to an evaluation of the accuracy and veracity of the witnesses (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; People v. Daniels, 88 A.D.2d 392, 400-401).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.