Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by references, in the prosecutor's opening statement and a police detective's testimony, to an accomplice who was not produced at trial. However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not move for a mistrial and did not object to the detective's testimony (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Fleming,
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.