1 People v Ruis (2004 NY Slip Op 07717)
People v Ruis
2004 NY Slip Op 07717 [11 AD3d 714]
October 25, 2004
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Thursday, March 10, 2005

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
Luis Eduardo Buenos Ruis, Also Known as Jorge Rodriguez, Appellant.


Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach, J.), rendered October 15, 2002, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although it is a violation of the Confrontation Clause for a prosecutor to elicit testimony which implies that a non-testifying witness identified the defendant as the perpetrator of a crime (see Mason v Scully, 16 F3d 38, 42-43 [1994]), " '[t]he [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted' " (People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820, 821 [2004], quoting Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, n 9 [2004]). Here, the investigating officer was permitted to testify that after speaking with an eyewitness who did not testify at trial and obtaining from the eyewitness a photograph of the defendant, the officer investigated further and the defendant subsequently was apprehended in Costa Rica. This testimony was properly admitted for the purpose of explaining the sequence of events leading to the defendant's apprehension (see People v Perez, 9 AD3d 376 [2004]; People v Spencer, 212 AD2d 645 [1995]). In any event, the evidence of the defendant's guilt, including the identification of the defendant at trial by four eyewitnesses, was overwhelming, making any resulting error harmless (see People v Latta, 295 AD2d 449 [2002]; People v Elliott, 256 AD2d 418 [1998]). [*2]

Under the facts of this case, the sentence was neither illegal nor excessive.

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Adams, Mastro and Spolzino, JJ., concur.