Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's present claim that the investigating detective's testimony impermissibly conveyed to the jury the idea that witnesses had identified him from so-called "mug" books is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of the detective did not convey that idea to the jury. There was nothing improper in the detective's testimony that...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
