Opinion
February 23, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander hunter, J.).
The court's rulings regarding defendant's attempt to cross-examine the prosecution's ballistics expert through the use of hypothetical questions were proper exercises of discretion that did not interfere with defendant's attempt to convince the jury that the shooting was an accident. Rather, the court properly sustained objections to hypothetical questions that were not specifically premised on facts that the evidence fairly tended to support ( see, People v. Cruz, 233 A.D.2d 102, affd 90 N.Y.2d 961).
The record establishes that the court responded meaningfully to the jury's requests for supplementary instructions regarding the various crimes submitted, as evidenced by the jury's failure to request clarification or to express any dissatisfaction with the court's responses ( see, People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 132).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Rubin, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.