Opinion
2012-06-8
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harry WILSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Brian D. Dennis of Counsel), for Respondent.
Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Brian D. Dennis of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and four counts of petit larceny (§ 155.25). Contrary to defendant's contention, he was not denied a fair trial based on cumulative errors made by County Court. The court properly denied his request to charge trespass as a lesser included offense of burglary in the third degree inasmuch as “there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that he entered [the mall in question] without criminal intent and only subsequently formed an intent to steal” ( People v. Zokari, 68 A.D.3d 578, 890 N.Y.S.2d 544,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 758, 906 N.Y.S.2d 831, 933 N.E.2d 230;see People v. Smalls, 92 A.D.3d 420, 421, 937 N.Y.S.2d 222;People v. Mercado, 294 A.D.2d 805, 805, 742 N.Y.S.2d 744,lv. denied98 N.Y.2d 731, 749 N.Y.S.2d 481, 779 N.E.2d 192).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court properly admitted evidence concerning the barring notice issued to defendant prohibiting him from entering onto the mall property because it was relevant to establish that defendant knowingly entered the mall unlawfully ( seePenal Law § 140.20; see generally People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241–242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808). In addition, the court properly admitted evidence with respect to the circumstances surrounding the issuance of that barring order as necessary background and narrative information ( see generally People v. Resek, 3 N.Y.3d 385, 390, 787 N.Y.S.2d 683, 821 N.E.2d 108). The probative value of that evidence exceeded its potential for prejudice ( see People v. Comfort, 60 A.D.3d 1298, 1301, 875 N.Y.S.2d 672,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 924, 884 N.Y.S.2d 705, 912 N.E.2d 1086). Defendant failed to request a limiting instruction concerning evidence of the barring order and thus did not preserve for our review his contention that the court should have issued such an instruction after that evidence was admitted ( see People v. Moore [Appeal No. 2], 78 A.D.3d 1658, 1659, 912 N.Y.S.2d 825). In any event, the court issued such an instruction at the People's request following the close of evidence and during the jury charge. We have considered the remaining instances of alleged cumulative error and conclude that they are without merit. The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.