People v. Leach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Leach

259 A.D.2d 633, 687 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2433

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered February 27, 1996, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly permitted the People’s witness to testify concerning a “business transaction” with the defendant on a streetcorner at 1:00 a.m. as it was probative on the issue of her identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the subject crime. Evidence of uncharged crimes may be used to prove identity (see, People v Molineux, 168 NY 264; see also, People v Branch, 191 AD2d 576, affd 83 NY2d 663). Moreover, any prejudice to the defendant was obviated by the court’s limiting instruction immediately after the witness’ testimony regarding this encounter (see, People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 49; People v Brown, 249 AD2d 556).

[634]*634The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not require reversal. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Goldstein, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered February 27, 1996, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly permitted the People’s witness to testify concerning a “business transaction” with the defendant on a streetcorner at 1:00 a.m. as it was probative on the issue of her identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the subject crime. Evidence of uncharged crimes may be used to prove identity (see, People v Molineux, 168 NY 264; see also, People v Branch, 191 AD2d 576, affd 83 NY2d 663). Moreover, any prejudice to the defendant was obviated by the court’s limiting instruction immediately after the witness’ testimony regarding this encounter (see, People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 49; People v Brown, 249 AD2d 556).

[634]*634The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not require reversal. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

People v. Leach, 259 A.D.2d 633, 687 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

259 A.D.2d 633 (People v. Leach) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related