Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was violated when the People were permitted to introduce the rebuttal testimony of a police detective, who stated that the defendant confessed after he was told his accomplice had "given him up and named him in the robbery." This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hughes,
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.