Opinion
October 16, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the warrantless arrest in his home was unlawful, and therefore his statements and certain physical evidence should have been suppressed, is without merit. Although it is true that "[a] warrantless arrest in a suspect's home or a place in which he has a reasonable expectation of privacy is prohibited absent exigent circumstances or consent" ( People v. Long, 124 A.D.2d 1016, 1017; People v. Wells, 143 A.D.2d 708, 709), once the defendant stepped into a public hallway, the police had the right to make the warrantless arrest ( see, People v. Jacobo, 208 A.D.2d 432; People v. Siler, 197 A.D.2d 842, 843; People v. Lopez, 134 A.D.2d 456). The arrest was not rendered improper when the defendant voluntarily went back into his private residence ( see, People v. Jacobo, supra; People v. Lopez, supra).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant contends that the court's charge with respect to the presumption of innocence may have conveyed to the jury an impression that the court had already formed an opinion of guilt. Since the defendant did not object to the charge, any error with respect thereto has not been preserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the charge, considered as a whole, conveyed the proper standard. The trial court properly instructed the jury in detail that the People had the burden of proving each and every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt ( see, People v. Actie, 215 A.D.2d 570; People v Tomala, 182 A.D.2d 848; People v. Medina, 178 A.D.2d 177).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.