Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Adrienne Wallace of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Philip J. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.), rendered August 27, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that testimony elicited from a detective regarding a certain witness's pretrial identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime constituted improper bolstering. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Speaks, 124 A.D.3d 689, 692 ; People v. Walker, 70 A.D.3d 870, 871, 894 N.Y.S.2d 156 ; People v. Chandler, 59 A.D.3d 562, 562, 872 N.Y.S.2d 283 ; People v. Moore, 159 A.D.2d 521, 522, 552 N.Y.S.2d 389 ). In any event, the testimony did not constitute improper
bolstering because it was offered for the relevant, nonhearsay purpose of establishing the reasons behind the detective's conduct, and to complete the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest (see People v. Speaks, 124 A.D.3d at 692 ; People v. Rosario, 100 A.D.3d 660, 661, 953 N.Y.S.2d 299 ; People v. Ragsdale, 68 A.D.3d 897, 898, 889 N.Y.S.2d 681 ).
The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, his entitlement to a missing witness charge (see People v. Savinon, 100 N.Y.2d 192, 197, 761 N.Y.S.2d 144, 791 N.E.2d 401 ; People v. Whitlock, 95 A.D.3d 909, 910–911, 943 N.Y.S.2d 227 ; People v. Greene, 87 A.D.3d 551, 552, 928 N.Y.S.2d 74 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
ENG, P.J., DILLON, CHAMBERS and BARROS, JJ., concur.