People v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roman

273 A.D.2d 53, 710 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6387

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), rendered December 23, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

By failing to object, failing to make specific objections, or by failing to request further relief after objections were sustained, defendant failed to preserve his present claims concerning alleged “bolstering” of the undercover officer’s identification, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal. The rule against “bolstering” of identification testimony (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471) does not apply to an arresting officer’s testimony concerning an undercover officer’s description of a defendant and confirmatory drive-by identification (see, e.g., People v Hagar, 216 AD2d 119, lv denied 86 NY2d 795). Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), rendered December 23, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

By failing to object, failing to make specific objections, or by failing to request further relief after objections were sustained, defendant failed to preserve his present claims concerning alleged “bolstering” of the undercover officer’s identification, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal. The rule against “bolstering” of identification testimony (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471) does not apply to an arresting officer’s testimony concerning an undercover officer’s description of a defendant and confirmatory drive-by identification (see, e.g., People v Hagar, 216 AD2d 119, lv denied 86 NY2d 795). Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

People v. Roman, 273 A.D.2d 53, 710 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

273 A.D.2d 53 (People v. Roman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related