holding that a consciousness of guilt instruction was warranted by evidence “that after the subject robbery was committed the defendant went home and altered his appearance by changing his clothes before going out again”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a consciousness of guilt instruction was warranted by evidence “that after the subject robbery was committed the defendant went home and altered his appearance by changing his clothes before going out again”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered January 9, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was a sufficient factual predicate to support a jury instruction on consciousness of guilt
(see People v Arriaga,
77 AD3d 846, 847 [2010];
People v Solimini,
69 AD3d 657, 658 [2010]). There was evidence presented at trial indicating that after the subject robbery was committed the defendant went home and altered his appearance by changing his clothes before going out again
(see People v Sage,
23 NY3d 16, 26 [2014];
People v Sabines,
121 AD3d 1409, 1410 [2014]). The defendant’s further argument that the language of the consciousness-of-guilt charge was improper and misleading is unpreserved for appellate review
(see
CPL 470.05 [2];
People v Arriaga,
77 AD3d at 847 ) and, in any event, without merit. The County Court’s charge conveyed the proper legal standard with respect to evidence of consciousness of guilt
(see People v Newman,
107 AD3d 827, 829 [2013];
People v London,
248 AD2d 554, 555 [1998]). The court instructed the jury on the weight to be given to the evidence, properly left to the jury the question of whether the evidence indicated consciousness of guilt, and discussed the possibility of an innocent explanation for the conduct at issue
(see People v Arriaga,
77 AD3d at 847 ;
People v Solimini,
69 AD3d at 658 ;
People v Robinson,
10 AD3d 696 [2004]).
The defendant’s contention that the County Court erred by instructing the jury as to an alibi defense is waived because the court granted the defendant’s request to provide this charge to the jury
(see People v Ford,
62 NY2d 275, 283 [1984];
People v Whalen, 59
NY2d 273, 280 [1983]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Balkin, J.P., Roman, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.