PEOPLE v. REID (2006)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickerson, J.), rendered September 30, 2004, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal mischief in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, reckless driving, leaving the scene of an incident without reporting (six counts), driving at an unsafe and imprudent speed, failing to stop at a red light (three counts), failing to stop at a stop sign (four counts), and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecution failed to prove that a police officer sustained a “physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9).   However, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of physical injury (see People v. Rojas, 61 N.Y.2d 726, 727, 472 N.Y.S.2d 615, 460 N.E.2d 1100;  People v. Belk, 241 A.D.2d 552, 553, 661 N.Y.S.2d 239;  People v. Callaghan, 220 A.D.2d 609, 633 N.Y.S.2d 46;  People v. Williams, 203 A.D.2d 608, 610 N.Y.S.2d 613).

 The defendant's contention that the court erred in its Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to object to the ruling which merely allowed the prosecutor to ask, if the defendant chose to testify, about the existence of prior felony convictions without eliciting the underlying facts (see People v. Polk, 284 A.D.2d 416, 417, 728 N.Y.S.2d 171;  People v. Townley, 245 A.D.2d 322, 667 N.Y.S.2d 261).   In any event, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in so ruling (see People v. Springer, 13 A.D.3d 657, 658, 787 N.Y.S.2d 386;  People v. Carrasquillo, 204 A.D.2d 735, 612 N.Y.S.2d 424).

 The court properly declined to charge the jury on involuntary intoxication as there was no evidence that the defendant's ingestion of prescription medication with codeine was against his will, as required (see 1 CJI [N.Y.] § 9.45).   In any event, no reasonable view of the evidence supported the involuntary intoxication defense (see People v. Caballero, 160 A.D.2d 810, 553 N.Y.S.2d 848).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.