Opinion
June 29, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.).
The only identification of the defendant was by a witness who had pleaded guilty to possessing crack and had previously been convicted of welfare fraud.
The detective who made the case against defendant testified that his investigation focused on him after speaking to the victim's family and other unnamed witnesses. Defense counsel objected and the court quite properly stated to the jury that the information was being received solely to let them know what the detective did and "[w]hether the information was accurate or inaccurate, we don't know." While the court at that point neutralized any bolstering, the People in summation repeatedly emphasized that the detective had interviewed witnesses before the arrest. This was not a mere reference to the detective's testimony, but was an improper attempt to bolster the prosecution's case ( see, People v. Lopez, 123 A.D.2d 399, affd 69 N.Y.2d 975; People v. Felder, 108 A.D.2d 869, 870).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.