Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The People, etc., respondent, v. Jerome Fletcher, appellant.
Argued—May 10, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered January 3, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and tampering with physical evidence, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting an autopsy photograph of the victim into evidence. The challenged photograph was neither excessively gruesome nor introduced for the sole purpose of arousing the jurors' passions and prejudicing the defendant (see People v. Rivera, 74 AD3d 993, 994; People v. Prowse, 60 AD3d 703, 704; People v. Reyes, 49 AD3d 565, 566–567; People v. Allan, 41 AD3d 727, 727–728). Rather, the photograph was relevant to help illustrate and corroborate the testimony of the medical examiner regarding the cause of death (see People v. Prowse, 60 AD3d at 704; People v. Reyes, 49 AD3d at 566–567; People v. Allan, 41 AD3d at 727–728).
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court's charge to the jury with respect to the voluntariness of his statements to investigating detectives was erroneous in certain respects. To the extent the defendant claims that the Supreme Court should have instructed the jury as to the specific statutory language of CPL 60.45(2)(a) regarding “undue pressure” (see People v. Floyd, 34 AD3d 494, 495), his argument is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not make such a request. In any event, although certain aspects of the charge were erroneous (see People v. Slide, 76 AD3d 1106, 1109–1110), any error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and no significant probability that the errors contributed to his conviction (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241; People v. Brody, 82 AD3d 784; People v. Gorham, 72 AD3d 1108, 1109–1110).
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., FLORIO, BELEN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2007–01301 (Ind.No. 161 /05)
Decided: May 24, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)