People v. Cham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cham

259 A.D.2d 492, 684 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1993

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 492 (People v. Cham) 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. Cham, 259 A.D.2d 492, 684 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1993 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), rendered June 20, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree and arson in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that evidence of uncharged criminal acts relating to his drug dealing activities was improperly admitted into evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, this evidence was relevant to the defendant’s motive and intent, and the trial court gave a curative instruction which alleviated any potential prejudice to the defendant arising from the admission of evidence of the uncharged criminal acts (see, People v Caban, 224 AD2d 705; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865). Since the probative value of this evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice, it was admissible (see, People v Maher, 224 AD2d 549, affd 89 NY2d 456).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), rendered June 20, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree and arson in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that evidence of uncharged criminal acts relating to his drug dealing activities was improperly admitted into evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, this evidence was relevant to the defendant’s motive and intent, and the trial court gave a curative instruction which alleviated any potential prejudice to the defendant arising from the admission of evidence of the uncharged criminal acts (see, People v Caban, 224 AD2d 705; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865). Since the probative value of this evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice, it was admissible (see, People v Maher, 224 AD2d 549, affd 89 NY2d 456).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 492, 684 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cham-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack