Opinion
March 17, 1995
Appeal from the Wayne County Court, Strobridge, J.
Present — Lawton, J.P., Fallon, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court should have charged the jury on temporary lawful possession of a weapon. Because counsel failed to request that specific charge, defendant's contention has not been preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467). In any event, the evidence was insufficient to warrant that charge (see, People v. Williams, 50 N.Y.2d 1043, 1044-1045). Additionally, the court properly refused to charge justification as a defense to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (see, People v. Pons, 68 N.Y.2d 264, 265-267; People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126). Defendant also failed to preserve for review her contention that, during cross-examination of defendant's expert, the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony that battered woman syndrome is not a defense to a crime (see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to reach it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [a]).
The court erred in permitting the People to read into evidence an inculpatory portion of defendant's Grand Jury testimony, while denying defense counsel's request to have read into evidence exculpatory portions of that testimony or portions that explained the testimony introduced by the People (see, People v Saintilima, 173 A.D.2d 496, 497; People v. Spano, 57 A.D.2d 715, 716). We conclude that the error is harmless because the evidence of defendant's guilt is overwhelming and there is no significant probability that the court's refusal to admit that evidence affected the jury's verdict (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242; People v. Spano, supra).
We have reviewed the remaining contention of defendant and conclude that it is without merit.