From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 10, 2005
14 A.D.3d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2003-04616

January 10, 2005.

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.

Before: Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.


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; People v. Fleming, 70 NY2d 947; People v. Perez, 9 AD3d 376, 377; People v. Moreno, 303 AD2d 424; People v. Hughes, 251 AD2d 513). 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), the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v. Latta, supra).


Summaries of

People v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 10, 2005
14 A.D.3d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

People v. Mack

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL MACK, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 10, 2005

Citations

14 A.D.3d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
787 N.Y.S.2d 397

Citing Cases

Whitley v. Ercole

We begin, thus, with that question, and, after de novo review of the record, we find no basis for deeming…

Wright v. Lee

Although the record reflects a defense objection during the prosecutor's opening and an objection during the…