Opinion
June 2, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
In light of all of the testimony adduced at the trial, there was insufficient evidence of intoxication which would lead a reasonable person to doubt that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crimes of which he had been accused (cf. People v. Perry, 61 N.Y.2d 849). Thus, the trial court properly denied the defendant's request for a jury charge on that issue.
Since the defendant never raised an objection to the court's expressed intention not to marshal the evidence, the alleged error has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v. McCright, 107 A.D.2d 766). Even if defense counsel's subsequent exception to the court's ruling on his request to give a circumstantial evidence charge could be interpreted as referring also to the trial court's decision not to marshal the evidence, there would be no basis for a reversal and a new trial, since the trial was relatively short and the jury was adequately apprised of the defendant's position (see, People v. Little, 98 A.D.2d 752, affd 62 N.Y.2d 1020).
The isolated comment during the prosecutor's summation, in which he arguably vouched for the credibility of the People's witnesses, did not taint the entire trial. As to the other allegedly objectionable comments, since no objection was made to them, any errors with respect thereto have not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Thompson, 97 A.D.2d 554). In any event, the remarks concerning the reluctance of one of the witnesses to testify were reasonably inferable from the evidence adduced at the trial. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.