Summary
holding photograph was admissible to show defendant's appearance at time of the robbery
Summary of this case from State v. SteeleOpinion
June 15, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During the trial, one of the complainants and the arresting officer testified that the defendant had numerous tattoos on his arms and body. A photograph of the defendant, taken after his arrest, was offered into evidence for the purpose of establishing the defendant's appearance at the time of the robbery. Thus, the admission of the photograph was not error (see, People v Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 194, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020; People v Laguer, 58 A.D.2d 610).
A photograph of one of the victims taken at the hospital was also properly received into evidence. An oral surgeon described the appearance and fracture of the victim's jaw. The photograph, therefore, served to corroborate the dentist's testimony and was not admitted for the sole purpose of arousing the emotions of the jury and prejudicing the defendant (see, People v Corbett, 68 A.D.2d 772, 779, affd 52 N.Y.2d 714).
Having failed to object to the prosecutor's summation comments concerning the credibility of one of the People's witnesses, the defendant failed to preserve his claim for appellate review (see, People v Lafayette, 118 A.D.2d 593). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks were within the bounds of permissible argument in response to comments by defense counsel in his summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399; People v Pearson, 118 A.D.2d 737, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1055). Niehoff, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.