Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that his constitutional right of confrontation was violated when the trial court permitted the investigating detective to testify that the defendant had been arrested after being implicated by another suspect who did not testify at trial. The contention, was not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Cummings,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.