Summary
holding that evidence of defendant's prior uncharged crime in which he robbed another person immediately prior to attempting to rob the victim was properly admitted since it was "inextricably interwoven" with the events which led up to the defendant's arrest, and it was necessary to complete the narrative of the crime
Summary of this case from Green v. ConwayOpinion
January 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
While it was error to have admitted, over timely and specific objection, the arresting officer's testimony, which minimally bolstered the identification testimony of two eyewitnesses ( see, People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471), the error was harmless. In light of the strong identification testimony adduced at trial, there was no significant probability that absent the bolstering testimony the defendant would have been acquitted ( see, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969).
The defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the delay in the People's disclosure of two police officers' memobooks, the contents of which were consistent with the police reports already in the defendant's possession at the commencement of trial ( see, People v Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the lineup and the photographic arrays were not unduly suggestive ( see, People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 U.S. 833). There is no requirement that the defendant must be surrounded by persons nearly identical to him in appearance ( see, People v Brito, 179 A.D.2d 666).
Moreover, the evidence of the defendant's prior uncharged crime in which he robbed another person immediately prior to attempting to rob the victim was properly admitted since it was "inextricably interwoven" with the events which led up to the defendant's arrest, and it was necessary to complete the narrative of the crime ( see, People v Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364; see also, People v Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245) or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Sullivan, JJ., concur.