People v. Mack
This text of 14 A.D.3d 517 (People v. Mack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered April 22, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him because a detective testified that he arrested the defendant after a conversation with his accomplice, who did not testify at trial. Although the defendant objected to that testimony and moved for a mistrial, he did not specify the ground now raised on appeal and failed to object to the court’s remedy. Therefore, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947 [1988]; People v Perez, 9 AD3d 376, 377 [2004]; People v Moreno, 303 AD2d 424 [2003]; People v Hughes, 251 AD2d 513 [1998]).
[518]*518In any event, although the challenged testimony was improper, since it implied that the accomplice implicated the defendant in the crime (see People v Latta, 295 AD2d 449 [2002]), the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]; People v Latta, supra). Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
14 A.D.3d 517, 787 N.Y.S.2d 397, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mack-nyappdiv-2005.