| People v Murphy |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 04864 [151 AD3d 888] |
| June 14, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Randolph Murphy, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Samuel Brown of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Amy Appelbaum,and Claibourne Henry of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.),rendered May 1, 2014, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree arising out of his participation inthe gunpoint robbery of a delivery driver, during which the driver was shot and seriouslywounded. The defendant ultimately admitted his involvement in the incident in statements hemade to the police, and he was further linked to the crime through DNA evidence.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial by a policedetective's testimony that the defendant stated he had just gotten out of jail prior to the crime, orby the prosecutor's references to the redaction of certain portions of the defendant's statements tothe authorities. While error, these matters were immediately addressed by the trial court, whichstruck the challenged testimony and provided the jury with lengthy and comprehensive curativeinstructions sufficient to dispel any prejudicial effect, rendering a mistrial or reversalunwarranted (see People vMacaluso, 144 AD3d 947, 947-948 [2016]; People v Dubois, 116 AD3d 878, 878 [2014]; People v Redmon, 81 AD3d 752,752 [2011]; People v Way, 69AD3d 964, 965 [2010]; People vWhitely, 41 AD3d 622, 623 [2007]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the admission ofcertain forensic evidence violated his constitutional right of confrontation (see People v Caballero, 137 AD3d929, 929-930 [2016]; People vTaylor, 134 AD3d 739, 741 [2015]; People v Currie, 131 AD3d 1265, 1266 [2015]; People v Walker, 70 AD3d 870,871 [2010]), and we decline to review the contention in the exercise of our interest of justicejurisdiction.
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Roman andBrathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.