People v. Almonte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Almonte

118 A.D.3d 548, 987 N.Y.S.2d 152

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 17, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 548 (People v. Almonte) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Almonte, 118 A.D.3d 548, 987 N.Y.S.2d 152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered December 9, 2010, as amended January 12, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The challenged evidence presented regarding other crimes and bad acts, and the related arguments in the prosecutor’s summation, were generally relevant for purposes other than criminal propensity (see generally People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 559-560 [2012]). Some portions of the proof at issue were relevant to consciousness of guilt and others tended to complete a coherent narrative. To the extent that some elements of the challenged evidence did not have a legitimate nonpropensity purpose or had the potential for undue prejudice, and to the extent any portions of the prosecutor’s summation were inappropriate, the court’s curative actions minimized any prejudice, and any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered December 9, 2010, as amended January 12, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The challenged evidence presented regarding other crimes and bad acts, and the related arguments in the prosecutor’s summation, were generally relevant for purposes other than criminal propensity (see generally People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 559-560 [2012]). Some portions of the proof at issue were relevant to consciousness of guilt and others tended to complete a coherent narrative. To the extent that some elements of the challenged evidence did not have a legitimate nonpropensity purpose or had the potential for undue prejudice, and to the extent any portions of the prosecutor’s summation were inappropriate, the court’s curative actions minimized any prejudice, and any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 548, 987 N.Y.S.2d 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-almonte-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack