Opinion
June 15, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, JJ.)
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
At the trial, a police detective testified that the defendant confessed as soon as he heard another detective say that his accomplice was "giving it up" and going to show them where the victim's body was hidden. Although the defendant objected to that testimony, he did not specify the ground now raised on appeal that his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was violated when this testimony was admitted. Accordingly, his claim is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the contention has no merit because the testimony was properly admitted for the non-hearsay purpose of rebutting the defendant's claim that his oral, written, and videotaped confessions were coerced (see, Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409; People v. Rodriguez, 210 A.D.2d 266).
We also reject the defendant's contention that the trial court's Allen charge (see, Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492) was coercive and unbalanced. A review of the charge as a whole reveals that it was essentially neutral, directed at the jurors in general, and did not coerce them to reach a verdict or achieve a particular result (see, People v. Ramirez, 223 A.D.2d 656).
In light of our determination to affirm both judgments, it is not necessary to reach the defendant's remaining contention.
Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.