People v. McLean
Opinion of the Court
Appeal by the defendant from
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that it was error for the court to allow into evidence the blood-stained money taken from him upon his arrest. We disagree. The People made an adequate showing connecting the defendant, the money, and the crimes (see, People v Mirenda, 23 NY2d 439; People v Martinez, 115 AD2d 665). Uncertainties as to whether the blood drops found on the money belonged to the victim goes to their evidentiary weight and not to their admissibility (see, People v Mirenda, supra; People v Roldos, 161 AD2d 610).
The defendant’s contention that the verdict sheet submitted to the jury was improper (see, People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830) is not preserved for appellate review, since he failed to object to its submission (see, People v Belgrave, 181 AD2d 738; People v Andrews, 178 AD2d 482; People v Mason, 176 AD2d 358; People v Lugo, 150 AD2d 502; People v Mathis, 150 AD2d 613). We decline to review the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Belgrave, supra; People v Mathis, supra; People v Andrews, supra).
We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.