PEOPLE v. MORALES (1997)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered April 28, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree and two counts of sodomy in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 1/2 to 25 years, 10 to 20 years, and 10 to 20 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

 The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its findings (People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94, 68 N.E. 112).   A complainant's perjury on a collateral matter does not render his or her material testimony incredible as a matter of law (People v. Franklin, 188 A.D.2d 366, 591 N.Y.S.2d 174, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 839, 595 N.Y.S.2d 738, 611 N.E.2d 777), and in this case, the complainant gave credible explanations for her admitted falsehoods (People v. Bristol, 187 A.D.2d 403, 589 N.Y.S.2d 886, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 785, 594 N.Y.S.2d 732, 610 N.E.2d 405).

Defendant's contention that the court's Sandoval ruling deprived him of a fair trial has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Richiez, 173 A.D.2d 234, 569 N.Y.S.2d 442, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 925, 573 N.Y.S.2d 478, 577 N.E.2d 1070) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.   Were we to review, we would find that the ruling constituted a proper exercise of discretion.

Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the court's charge to the jury with respect to the complainant's perjury before the Grand Jury has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836, 552 N.Y.S.2d 908, 552 N.E.2d 156), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.   Were we to review it, we would find that the charge, when viewed as a whole, properly instructed the jury on the applicable legal principles (People v. Andujas, 79 N.Y.2d 113, 580 N.Y.S.2d 719, 588 N.E.2d 754;  People v. Bristol, 187 A.D.2d 403, 589 N.Y.S.2d 886, supra ).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.