People v Benson

Holding The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence. The court also held that the admission of testimony regarding a confidential informant did not violate the Confrontation Clause because it was used to show the officers’ state of mind rather than for its truth.

The court’s words

The [Confrontation] Clause [of the United States Constitution] does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted

2026 NY Slip Op 05803, at the official text

testimony that the officers had previously received information that the defendant kept a firearm in a bag in his bedroom was received not for its truth

2026 NY Slip Op 05803, at the official text

the scope of cross-examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court, which may limit cross-examination when, as here, questions are irrelevant

2026 NY Slip Op 05803, at the official text

the evidence was relevant, and 'not so inflammatory that its prejudicial effect exceeded its probative value'

2026 NY Slip Op 05803, at the official text