People v. Monzon

289 A.D.2d 595, 735 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13115
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 31, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 595 (People v. Monzon) 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. Monzon, 289 A.D.2d 595, 735 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered April 8, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant maintains that the court erred in admitting testimony regarding uncharged crimes allegedly committed by him. However, because he failed to raise an objection during the challenged portions of the testimony, this claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Berrios, 71 NY2d 905, 906; People v Duffy, 265 AD2d 568).

In any event, this contention is without merit. Evidence of uncharged criminal conduct is inadmissible if introduced solely to establish the defendant’s criminal propensities (see, People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241). However, such evidence is admissible to provide relevant background information and to complete a witness’s narrative to assist the jury in its comprehension of the crime charged (see, People v Montanez, 41 NY2d 53, 58; People v Dodson, 243 AD2d 644, 645).

Here, the testimony regarding the procurement of the search warrants was properly admitted to supply the jury with background information establishing the basis for the police officers’ actions in obtaining the search warrants. Moreover, the testimony was properly admitted to complete the narrative of events leading to the defendant’s arrest (see, People v Waite, 183 AD2d 796, 797).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Luciano, J. P., Townes, Crane and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Brown
2018 NY Slip Op 4559 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
MCNITT, JONATHAN, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
People v. Johnson
76 A.D.2d 1103 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Middleton
52 A.D.3d 533 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Bryan
50 A.D.3d 1049 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Jenkins
49 A.D.3d 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Philips
30 A.D.3d 618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Dahlbender
23 A.D.3d 493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. M.T.
2 Misc. 3d 980 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 2004)
People v. Gordon
308 A.D.2d 461 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
289 A.D.2d 595, 735 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-monzon-nyappdiv-2001.