From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

November 13, 2000.

Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., GREEN, HAYES, SCUDDER AND KEHOE, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

We reject the contention that defendant was deprived a fair trial when the prosecutor commented on and elicited evidence concerning two uncharged crimes without obtaining a Ventimiglia ruling. First, testimony that defendant was in possession of bolt cutters and copper pipe at the time of his arrest is not evidence of an uncharged crime because possession of those items is not illegal ( see, People v. Powell, 209 A.D.2d 879, 881, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1037). That evidence, moreover, was necessary "to complete the narrative of the episode" ( People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932, 932-933) and to explain why the police pursued and arrested defendant ( see, People v. Conyers, 160 A.D.2d 318, 319, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 786). Second, defendant was not accused of stealing copper pipe from 15 Rosewood Terrace, one of the locations that he allegedly burglarized. Thus, Ventimiglia was not implicated and the prosecutor was not required to seek an advance ruling with respect to the admissibility of evidence that copper pipe had been removed from that address ( see, People v. Kyser, 183 A.D.2d 238, 242, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 888).


Summaries of

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MALCOLM BROWN…

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

Date published: Nov 13, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 504

Citing Cases

People v. Steinmetz

In any event, we conclude that, even if we were to exercise our power to address the unpreserved contentions…

People v. Thomas

There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility ( see People v. Gaimari,…