PEOPLE v. RAGSDALE (2009)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered September 13, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding expert testimony on false confessions and as to the defendant's susceptibility to police interrogation techniques (see People v. Lee, 96 N.Y.2d 157, 162, 726 N.Y.S.2d 361, 750 N.E.2d 63;  People v. Herrnkind, 49 A.D.3d 555, 555, 851 N.Y.S.2d 886;  People v. Days, 31 A.D.3d 574, 575, 817 N.Y.S.2d 535;  People v. Green, 250 A.D.2d 143, 146-147, 683 N.Y.S.2d 597;  People v. Lea, 144 A.D.2d 863, 864-865, 534 N.Y.S.2d 588).

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contentions that the police detective's testimony regarding two witnesses' identification of him as the perpetrator of the charged crimes constituted improper bolstering (see People v. Bryan, 50 A.D.3d 1049, 1050, 856 N.Y.S.2d 227;  People v. Nanton, 18 A.D.3d 671, 672, 795 N.Y.S.2d 648).   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 actions, and to complete the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest approximately 10 days after the charged crimes occurred (see People v. Mendoza, 35 A.D.3d 507, 507, 826 N.Y.S.2d 146;  People v. Smalls, 293 A.D.2d 500, 739 N.Y.S.2d 630).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to confront witnesses against him is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];  People v. Rodriguez, 28 A.D.3d 496, 816 N.Y.S.2d 79;  People v. Cato, 22 A.D.3d 863, 802 N.Y.S.2d 753).   In any event, where, as here, “the evidence was admitted not for the truth of the statement, but to show the detectives' state of mind and to demonstrate how the police investigation evolved” (People v. Leftenant, 22 A.D.3d 603, 605, 804 N.Y.S.2d 327), there is no violation of the defendant's right of confrontation (see People v. Reynoso, 2 N.Y.3d 820, 821, 781 N.Y.S.2d 284, 814 N.E.2d 456;  People v. Reyes, 49 A.D.3d 565, 566, 855 N.Y.S.2d 160;  People v. Reynolds, 46 A.D.3d 845, 845, 848 N.Y.S.2d 278;  see also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the granting of a mistrial based on the prosecutor's alleged violation of the court's Molineux ruling (see People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286) would have been unwarranted as the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor's isolated and brief reference to a prior uncharged crime was not so great that it deprived him of his right to a fair trial in light of the court's prompt action in striking the prosecutor's question and issuing curative instructions to the jury (see People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 866, 437 N.Y.S.2d 75, 418 N.E.2d 668;  People v. Jackson, 59 A.D.3d 637, 873 N.Y.S.2d 214;  People v. Brescia, 41 A.D.3d 613, 613-614, 836 N.Y.S.2d 432).

The defendant was not entitled 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. Herrera, 285 A.D.2d 613, 728 N.Y.S.2d 745;  People v. Hernandez, 235 A.D.2d 367, 653 N.Y.S.2d 322).