## Facts

- Ramon Valdez was indicted for grand larceny in the fourth degree under N.Y. Penal Law § 155.30(5).
- The first jury trial was a single-witness identification case centered on a police officer’s eyewitness account; the jury could not reach a verdict on the grand-larceny count, and a mistrial was declared as to that count.
- The People retried Valdez solely on the grand-larceny count, again relying on the same officer as the critical witness.
- The officer testified he pursued the suspect continuously from an initial intersection to eventual apprehension, losing sight only briefly.
- At the retrial, before eliciting testimony about the charged offense, the prosecutor questioned the officer extensively about his military service, education, promotions, numerous commendations, Medal of Valor, and two “Cop of the Year” awards.
- The defense had not yet attacked the officer’s credibility when this background testimony was introduced.
- Valdez was convicted at the retrial and appealed, arguing the prosecutor’s early credibility-enhancing questioning was improper and prejudicial, among other claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecutor improperly bolstered the People’s key eyewitness by eliciting extensive, laudatory background testimony at the outset of direct examination before any credibility attack.
2. Whether the defense preserved the bolstering issue for appellate review through its trial objections, and if not, whether relief should be granted in the interest of justice.
3. Whether the error warranted reversal on this record.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division held the prosecutor’s opening “background” recitation portraying the officer as exceptionally accomplished and honorable was improper, particularly before any credibility issue had been raised.
- The court found the claim unpreserved as a matter of law because the defense made only general objections rather than a specific bolstering objection.
- The court declined to reverse in the interest of justice, concluding the error did not warrant discretionary relief on the record presented.
- The judgment of conviction for grand larceny in the fourth degree was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- The prosecution may not introduce “background” evidence primarily to support a witness’s credibility before the defense has attacked that credibility; such premature bolstering is improper.
- A claim of evidentiary error is not preserved for appellate review where counsel interposes only general objections that do not alert the trial court to the specific legal ground.
- An appellate court may review unpreserved error in the interest of justice, but discretionary reversal is not required where the error did not so compromise the trial’s fairness as to warrant that remedy.

## Conclusion

The court condemned the prosecutor’s strategic use of extensive laudatory background testimony to preemptively enhance the credibility of the People’s sole key eyewitness, but affirmed the conviction because the issue was unpreserved by specific objection and did not justify interest-of-justice reversal on this record.


People v. Valdez, 53 A.D.3d 172 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2008)