People v Walker

2010 NY Slip Op 01004 [70 AD3d 870]

February 9, 2010

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, March 31, 2010

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Andre Walker, Appellant.

—[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee,and Daniel A. McMillan of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.),rendered March 19, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, andobserve demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing therecord here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence(see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).

The defendant's contentions that the testimony of a detective recounting the description ofthe perpetrator given by a witness constituted improper bolstering and inadmissible hearsay, andviolated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution (hereinafter the Confrontation Clause), are unpreserved for appellate review, as thedefendant did not object to the testimony on those grounds (see People v Chandler, 59 AD3d 562 [2009]; People v Bryan, 50 AD3d 1049,1050 [2008]). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, this testimony was nothearsay, because it was not offered for its truth, but rather, to explain police actions and thesequence of events leading to the defendant's arrest (see People v Chandler, 59 AD3d at562). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the challenged testimony did notimplicate the defendant as the perpetrator or violate his rights under the Confrontation Clause(id.; see People v Nicholas,1 AD3d 614 [2003]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Belen andAustin, JJ., concur.