PEOPLE v. McLANE (1998)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered May 22, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 81/313 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

 Defendant's motion to suppress his videotaped statement was properly denied.   We see no reason to disturb the hearing court's determination to credit the detectives' testimony that they did not facilitate, or even know of, defendant's consumption of alcohol before questioning him (People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380).   The People met their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that, under the totality of the circumstances, defendant's videotaped statement was unaffected by alcohol and, was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made (see, People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, 279 N.Y.S.2d 515, 226 N.E.2d 305, cert. denied 389 U.S. 874, 88 S.Ct. 164, 19 L.Ed.2d 157;  People v. Morales, 210 A.D.2d 173, 620 N.Y.S.2d 367, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 1035, 623 N.Y.S.2d 192, 647 N.E.2d 464).

 The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding the defense from presenting the testimony of certain expert and lay witnesses since their proposed testimony was either remote from the issues to be determined at trial or was information within the “ken of the typical juror” (De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 297, 469 N.Y.S.2d 611, 457 N.E.2d 717;  see also, People v. Robles, 173 A.D.2d 337, 569 N.Y.S.2d 704, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1014, 575 N.Y.S.2d 822, 581 N.E.2d 1068).

 By failing to elaborate on the basis for his objection to the court's charge on justification, defendant failed to provide the court with a fair opportunity to rectify any error and failed to preserve the issue for appellate review (CPL § 470.05[2];  People v. Jackson, 76 N.Y.2d 908, 563 N.Y.S.2d 42, 564 N.E.2d 652), and we decline to review his present claim in the interest of justice.   Were we to review this claim, we would find that, viewed as a whole, the court's charge, conveyed the proper legal principles.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.