From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Howe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2002
292 A.D.2d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-07550

Argued February 15, 2002.

March 18, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered August 8, 2000, convicting him of assault in the second degree, aggravated criminal contempt, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jennifer K. Danburg of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Susan D. Settenbrino of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly permitted the prosecution to introduce evidence of his prior acts of domestic abuse and assaults against the complainant. This evidence was properly admitted as relevant background material to enable the jury to understand the defendant's relationship with the complainant and explain the issuance of an order of protection, and as evidence of the defendant's motive in the commission of the charged crimes (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v. Wright, 288 A.D.2d 409; People v. Howard, 285 A.D.2d 560; People v. Shorey, 172 A.D.2d 634).

The defendant's claim that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation improperly appealed to the sympathy of the jury and denigrated defense counsel is largely unpreserved for appellate review because his objections to most of these comments were sustained without any request for curative instructions (see, People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879; People v. Robinson, 281 A.D.2d 564; People v. Sherwood, 279 A.D.2d 486; People v. Persaud, 237 A.D.2d 538). With respect to the two comments that were the subject of the defendant's mistrial motion, reversal is not warranted because any prejudice these remarks may have caused was dissipated by the curative instructions given when objections to them were sustained and by the charge to the jury (see, People v. Brown, 272 A.D.2d 338; People v. Dhan, 271 A.D.2d 452).

KRAUSMAN, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Howe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2002
292 A.D.2d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Howe

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. LORANDAS HOWE, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 18, 2002

Citations

292 A.D.2d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
739 N.Y.S.2d 587

Citing Cases

People v. Whitley

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly permitted the prosecution to introduce…

People v. Sayers

Here, as a result of the trial court's failure to parse the testimony and instructions relating to evidence…