Opinion
2011-11-15
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Jamal WINTER, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant.Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Solomon Neubort and Emil J. Bove III of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered December 23, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court correctly permitted the introduction of testimony by witnesses to a robbery committed approximately one year after the robbery in this case as evidence of the identity of the perpetrator of the instant crime. The testimony constituted clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the subsequent robbery by using a distinctive and unique modus operandi similar to the manner in which the crime was committed in this case, which was probative of the defendant's identity as the perpetrator in this case ( see People v. Mateo, 93 N.Y.2d 327, 332, 690 N.Y.S.2d 527, 712 N.E.2d 692; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; People v. Christopher, 65 N.Y.2d 417, 426, 492 N.Y.S.2d 566, 482 N.E.2d 45; People v. Beam, 57 N.Y.2d 241, 253, 455 N.Y.S.2d 575, 441 N.E.2d 1093; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293, 61 N.E. 286; People v. Saunders, 71 A.D.3d 1058, 1058–1059, 898 N.Y.S.2d 168; People v. Alston, 62 A.D.3d 807, 808, 878 N.Y.S.2d 441).
Given the Supreme Court's numerous limiting instructions, the “probative value of this evidence outweighed the potential prejudice to the defendant” ( People v. Cornish, 280 A.D.2d 552, 553, 720 N.Y.S.2d 388; see People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d at 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; People v. Gordon, 308 A.D.2d 461, 462, 764 N.Y.S.2d 115).
RIVERA, J.P., ENG, BELEN and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.