Opinion
November 27, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant stands convicted of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree based upon an incident wherein he shot the victim following a brief argument concerning a drug transaction. During the course of the suppression hearing, the arresting officer testified that the defendant was on the front porch of his home, with his mother, when he was arrested. The defendant's mother, however, testified that she had invited the police into the home and that the defendant was arrested inside the premises.
The defendant, on appeal, challenges the propriety of the warrantless arrest. Initially, we note that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant based upon information supplied by an eyewitness to the crime (see, People v Mercado, 68 N.Y.2d 874; People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417; People v Landy, 59 N.Y.2d 369; People v McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594). Additionally, we conclude that no warrant was necessary to effectuate the arrest since the defendant was outside the home when confronted by the police (see, People v Jones [Henry], 150 A.D.2d 496). Even if we were to credit his mother's testimony that the defendant was inside her home when arrested, a warrant was not required since the mother testified that the police entered the home with her consent (see, People v Olkoski, 131 A.D.2d 706; People v Messam, 112 A.D.2d 449; People v Boccio, 107 A.D.2d 816).
The defendant also contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by virtue of improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation and cross-examination. The defendant, however, did not object to any of the transgressions now alleged and thereby failed to preserve the issue for appellate review (CPL 470.05; see, People v Comer, 137 A.D.2d 545; People v Munoz, 134 A.D.2d 532). In any event, to the extent that the prosecutor did exceed the bounds of proper comment, we find that a reversal of the conviction is not warranted in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction in view of the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including his challenge to the propriety of the sentence, and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.