Opinion
No. 570665/04.
Decided February 1, 2006.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered October 28, 2004, after a jury trial, convicting him of aggravated harassment in the second degree, attempted coercion in the second degree, and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered October 28, 2004, affirmed.
PRESENT: Suarez, P.J., McCooe, Schoenfeld, JJ
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior uncharged crime, since the earlier incident between defendant and the complainant, his former girlfriend, was probative of defendant's motive and intent and provided background information necessary for the jury's full understanding of the couple's relationship and of the case ( see People v. Santiago, 295 AD2d 215, lv denied 98 NY2d 701; People v. Wilson, 279 AD2d 381, lv denied 96 NY2d 869; People v. Angel, 238 AD2d 210, lv denied 90 NY2d 1009). The uncharged crime evidence was also relevant to counter the potential justification defense expressly adverted to by defense counsel during the Molineux colloquy (see People v. Mehmeti, 279 AD2d 420, lv denied 96 NY2d 832). The court properly found that the evidence was more probative then prejudicial. We note that defendant declined the court's offer to give instructions concerning the limited purpose of the evidence.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
I concur.