Opinion
February 8, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Minor discrepancies in a witness's testimony do not warrant an impeachment of the jury's verdict (see, People v Martin, 108 A.D.2d 928; People v Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 1133; People v Rodriguez, 72 A.D.2d 571). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's further contention, the admission into evidence of testimony which, in effect, established that certain items in the defendant's vehicle were stolen property taken during a robbery, was not error. Evidence of uncharged crimes may be introduced in order to show the defendant's motive or intent (see, People v Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364; People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264). In this case, the aforementioned testimony was probative of the defendant's motive and intent in engaging in a later shooting incident with the police, which resulted in the instant charges against the defendant. Although some prejudicial effect will necessarily result from the introduction of uncharged criminal conduct, the probative value of the evidence herein clearly outweighed any prejudicial effect (see, People v Vails, supra, at 368-369). Moreover, the court carefully circumscribed the scope of the permissible testimony and gave a jury instruction concerning the use to which the testimony concerning the items found in the defendant's vehicle was to be considered by the jury, to wit, that such evidence was to be considered solely "on the question of motive and intent * * * and for no other purpose".
We find no basis for disturbing the sentence (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.