Opinion
KA 02-00725.
December 31, 2003.
Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Affronti, J.), entered March 19, 2002, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree.
EDWARD J. NOWAK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HOWARD R. RELIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O'BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Before: PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, KEHOE, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25) and attempted burglary in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]), defendant contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by eliciting bolstering testimony from a police officer. Defendant made only two generalized objections to the allegedly improper questioning, one of which was sustained. The remaining objection was not sufficiently specific to preserve defendant's present contention for our review ( see People v. West, 56 N.Y.2d 662, 663; see also People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818, 819). In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit. "Where the police officer merely testifies that the defendant was a `suspect', `[s]uch testimony cannot be equated with police testimony improperly implying that a witness who was not brought to testify did in fact implicate the defendant'" ( People v. Williams, 193 A.D.2d 826, 827, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 905; see People v. Brown, 262 A.D.2d 570, 575, affd 95 N.Y.2d 776; People v. Griffin, 246 A.D.2d 668, 669, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 973; People v. Polidore, 181 A.D.2d 835, 837, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 836). Contrary to defendant's contention, the prosecutor's questioning did not elicit bolstering testimony from the police officer, and thus defendant has failed to show "how the prosecutor's use of allegedly * * * bolstering questions constituted prosecutorial misconduct or substantially prejudiced him" ( People v. Parker, 305 A.D.2d 858, 859).