| People v Tucker |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07274 [54 AD3d 1065] |
| September 30, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MarcTucker, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Frances Impellizzeri of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.),rendered April 2, 2004, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not err in admitting into evidence a police detective's testimony that thedefendant became a suspect after the detective spoke with nontestifying individuals who did notwitness the crime. As this testimony was elicited not for the truth of the matter asserted, but toexplain the sequence of events leading to the defendant's arrest, it did not violate the defendant'sright to confront witnesses (see People v Reynolds, 46 AD3d 845 [2007]; People vDean, 41 AD3d 495 [2007]; People v Ruis, 11 AD3d 714 [2004]). "Moreover, therewas no suggestion that these individuals implicitly accused, or even possessed sufficientinformation to implicate, the defendant in the commission of the crime" (People v Barboza,24 AD3d 460, 461 [2005]). Accordingly, there was no danger that the jury "would treat thisevidence as an accusation by a nontestifying witness" (People v Newland, 6 AD3d 330,331 [2004]; People v Barboza, 24 AD3d at 461; People [*2]v Nicholas, 1 AD3d 614 [2003]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Fisher, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.