We find no merit to defendant's claim that the prosecutor's opening statement was inflammatory. "The prosecutor's remarks were a fair outline of the stark facts" (People v. Williams, 160 A.D.2d 627, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 798). Moreover, the court issued cautionary instructions as to the function of opening statements (People v. Comer, 73 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). In any event, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the prosecutor's remarks, if at all improper, constitute harmless error (People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). In this context, we note that, had defendant preserved his similar claim that the prosecutor's summation was prejudicial, we would also find no error. However, we decline to reach this argument in the interest of justice.
The record as a whole does not support defendant's contention that the court erred in denying his requests for a CPL article 730 examination during trial. Regardless of whether defendant's intent in twice slashing his wrists in the presence of the jury was suicidal or, as the trial court found, merely disruptive, the record shows that he "was able to consult with counsel `"`with a reasonable degree of rational understanding * * * and * * * ha[d] a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.'"'" (People v. Gelikkaya, 84 N.Y.2d 456, 460, quoting People v. Francabandera, 33 N.Y.2d 429, 436.) That defendant was subsequently found incompetent to stand trial on three other indictments almost a year after the guilty verdict in the within case was rendered does not alter our finding that, at the time of this trial, the trial court was justified in its conclusion that a CPL article 730 examination was not warranted.
Finally, we find that defendant's sentence is fully supported by the violent nature of this crime and his extensive criminal record (People v. Brown, 183 A.D.2d 612, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 828).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.