PEOPLE v. MARTIN (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vincent M. Del Giudice, J.), rendered October 28, 2019, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.  The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree arising out of the defendant's participation in the shooting death of two occupants of a parked car.  The defendant's contention that the lineup identification procedure was unduly suggestive is partially unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to raise all of the specific grounds upon which he now challenges the procedure at the Wade hearing (see CPL 470.05[2];  United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149;  People v. Gregory, 160 A.D.3d 894, 75 N.Y.S.3d 225).  In any event, the defendant failed to establish that the procedure was unduly suggestive (see People v. Delgado, 221 A.D.3d 909, 909–910, 200 N.Y.S.3d 414;  People v. Salcedo, 209 A.D.3d 678, 679, 175 N.Y.S.3d 329).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should have precluded certain narration of video surveillance footage as it was improper opinion testimony is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to reach the issue (see CPL 470.05[2]).  Defense counsel did not object to that portion of the narration at trial.  The defendant's objection at trial to a different portion of the narration on the basis that it was “pure speculation” did not encompass the defendant's contention on appeal.  Moreover, the defendant did not object to the court's curative instructions regarding the narration nor did he request additional instructions (see People v. Dunaway, 207 A.D.3d 742, 744, 172 N.Y.S.3d 108).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

DUFFY, J.P., DOWLING, WARHIT and QUIRK, JJ., concur.