Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court improperly allowed the prosecutor to elicit testimony regarding his possession of a beeper and a cell phone at the time of his arrest. He also argues that the trial court erred in allowing an undercover detective to testify that the detective previously used a beeper or a cell phone to contact drug dealers. These contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v McDowell...
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.
