Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Antonio GARCIA, Appellant.

Decided: May 20, 2002

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, SANDRA L. TOWNES and BARRY A. COZIER, JJ. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (M. Chris Fabricant of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Debra J. Kondel of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered October 26, 2000, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant contends that certain testimony, questioning, and summation comments by the prosecutor improperly suggested to the jury that he had a prior criminal history.   As the defendant raised only general objections (see People v. Young, 278 A.D.2d 261, 716 N.Y.S.2d 608), or objected on grounds other than those raised on appeal regarding the allegedly-improper questioning and testimony (see People v. Weston, 56 N.Y.2d 844, 453 N.Y.S.2d 167, 438 N.E.2d 873), and failed to object to the prosecutor's comments which were purportedly improper (see People v. Robinson, 281 A.D.2d 564, 721 N.Y.S.2d 830;  People v. Walston, 248 A.D.2d 570, 669 N.Y.S.2d 879), his claims are not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2] ).

 In any event, the testimony and summation comments that the fingerprints recovered from the scene matched those of the defendant stored with an associated identification number in a state computer system, which was not specifically identified as police-related, did not compel the inference that the defendant had a past criminal history (see People v. Myers, 220 A.D.2d 272, 632 N.Y.S.2d 111;  see also People v. Peoples, 142 A.D.2d 610, 530 N.Y.S.2d 41).   In addition, the court's instruction to the prosecutor to refer to the defendant's “NYSIS” number as an “identification number” generated after the defendant's arrest for the burglary at issue sufficiently removed any potential prejudice (see generally People v. Vincent, 250 A.D.2d 787, 672 N.Y.S.2d 781;  People v. Woods, 134 A.D.2d 306, 520 N.Y.S.2d 632).   The prosecutor did not suggest that the defendant had a prior criminal history either when eliciting the testimony regarding the defendant's fingerprints and identification number or in her summation (see generally People v. Greeman, 235 A.D.2d 281, 652 N.Y.S.2d 521;  People v. Redd, 217 A.D.2d 564, 628 N.Y.S.2d 590;  People v. Simmons, 170 A.D.2d 15, 573 N.Y.S.2d 960).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Copied to clipboard