Opinion
2011-11-15
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Christopher WORLD, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Anna Pervukhin of counsel), for appellant.Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, and Marie John–Drigo of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.), rendered January 20, 2010, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly permitted the complainant's friend to testify, under the “prompt outcry” exception to the hearsay rule, that the complainant told the friend that she had been raped ( see People v. Shelton, 1 N.Y.3d 614, 615, 777 N.Y.S.2d 9, 808 N.E.2d 1268 [internal quotation marks omitted]; People v. McDaniel, 81 N.Y.2d 10, 16, 595 N.Y.S.2d 364, 611 N.E.2d 265; People v. Verrilli, 69 A.D.3d 963, 895 N.Y.S.2d 439).
The trial court properly admitted evidence of uncharged crimes committed by the defendant since this evidence was inextricably interwoven with the narrative of events, and since it was necessary background information to explain to the jury the relationship between the defendant and the complainant ( see People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364, 401 N.Y.S.2d 479, 372 N.E.2d 320;
People v. Dahlbender, 23 A.D.3d 493, 805 N.Y.S.2d 597; People v. Samlal, 292 A.D.2d 400, 738 N.Y.S.2d 594). To the extent that the testimony in question exceeded the scope of the trial court's ruling, the trial court's prompt curative instructions were sufficient to mitigate any possible prejudice ( see People v. Alexander, 50 A.D.3d 816, 817, 857 N.Y.S.2d 165).
The defendant's challenges to the alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct in the opening statement and in summation are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Masaguilar, 86 A.D.3d 619, 620, 926 N.Y.S.2d 914; People v. Muniz, 44 A.D.3d 1074, 844 N.Y.S.2d 396; People v. Jenkins, 38 A.D.3d 566, 567, 831 N.Y.S.2d 494). In any event, most of the remarks now challenged on appeal were proper. Although some of the prosecutor's comments in summation were improper, they constituted harmless error ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Ortiz, 46 A.D.3d 580, 581, 846 N.Y.S.2d 370).
FLORIO, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.