People v. Mack

Jan 10, 2005
Versions:14 A.D.3d 517
787 N.Y.S.2d 397
2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 176

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]).

In 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.