From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Phipps

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 2008
50 A.D.3d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2005-11688.

April 15, 2008.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered December 6, 2005, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Nancy E. Little of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Dillon and Balkan, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence testimony of a 14-year-old prosecution witness who participated in the crime that she had a sexual relationship with the defendant and had carried guns for him. "Although not admissible to show a defendant's general criminal propensity, evidence of a defendant's past uncharged criminal behavior may be admitted if it is relevant to a material aspect of the People's direct case, or because of some recognized exception to the rule, such as motive, intent, mistake of fact, common scheme or plan, or the identity of the defendant" ( People v Wright, 288 AD2d 409, 410; see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241; People v Santarelli, 49 NY2d 241; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293 [1901]). Here, evidence of the relationship was relevant to both the defendant's intent and the nature of his involvement in the crime, its probative value outweighed the potential prejudice to the defendant, and the court gave an appropriate limiting instruction ( see People v Satiro, 72 NY2d 821, 822; People v Clink, 32 AD3d 862, 863; People v James, 19 AD3d 616, 616-617).

The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation denied him due process and a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Nieves, 2 AD3d 539, 540). In any event, a review of the challenged comments reveals that they were either fair comment on the evidence adduced at trial or responsive to defense counsel's summation ( see People v McHarris, 297 AD2d 824, 825; People v Cariola, 276 AD2d 800).


Summaries of

People v. Phipps

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 2008
50 A.D.3d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

People v. Phipps

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CRAIG PHIPPS, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 15, 2008

Citations

50 A.D.3d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3486
854 N.Y.S.2d 781

Citing Cases

People v. Phipps

July 11, 2008. Appeal from the 2d Dept: 50 AD3d 929 (Kings). Kaye,…

People v. Mendez

Evidence of uncharged crimes may properly be admitted "as relevant background material to enable the jury to…