People v. Brand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brand

135 A.D.2d 1125, 523 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52991

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.2d 1125 (People v. Brand) 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. Brand, 135 A.D.2d 1125, 523 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we find no error that requires reversal of defendant’s convictions of forgery and criminal possession of forged instruments. Where, as here, evidence of prior uncharged crimes or bad acts is relevant to negate the existence of mistake or to show the intent with which the defendant acted, its probative value is deemed to outweigh the danger of prejudice and such evidence is admissible (People v Dales, 309 NY 97, 100-101; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 291-293). This is particularly true in a case involving forgery where the underlying intent cannot always be easily inferred except from evidence of successive repetitions of the act (People v Dales, supra, at 101). Thus, evidence of other uncharged forgeries was relevant on the issue of defendant’s intent (see, People v Johnson, 65 NY2d 556, 562, rearg denied 66 NY2d 759; People v Williams, 126 AD2d 935). Although it would have been preferable for the trial court to have instructed the jury as to the limited purpose for which the prosecution was allowed to make inquiry about other uncharged crimes, in the absence of a specific request for such an instruction, we find no basis for reversal.

We have reviewed all other claims raised by defendant on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Reed, J. — grand larceny, third degree, and other offenses.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we find no error that requires reversal of defendant’s convictions of forgery and criminal possession of forged instruments. Where, as here, evidence of prior uncharged crimes or bad acts is relevant to negate the existence of mistake or to show the intent with which the defendant acted, its probative value is deemed to outweigh the danger of prejudice and such evidence is admissible (People v Dales, 309 NY 97, 100-101; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 291-293). This is particularly true in a case involving forgery where the underlying intent cannot always be easily inferred except from evidence of successive repetitions of the act (People v Dales, supra, at 101). Thus, evidence of other uncharged forgeries was relevant on the issue of defendant’s intent (see, People v Johnson, 65 NY2d 556, 562, rearg denied 66 NY2d 759; People v Williams, 126 AD2d 935). Although it would have been preferable for the trial court to have instructed the jury as to the limited purpose for which the prosecution was allowed to make inquiry about other uncharged crimes, in the absence of a specific request for such an instruction, we find no basis for reversal.

We have reviewed all other claims raised by defendant on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Reed, J. — grand larceny, third degree, and other offenses.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.2d 1125, 523 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brand-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack