From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 17, 2004
4 A.D.3d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2858.

Decided February 17, 2004.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), rendered February 6, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Zachary H. Johnson, for Respondent.

Robert S. Dean, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez, JJ.


The court properly admitted testimony that the undercover officer observed defendant and his codefendant engage in a transaction with another buyer immediately prior to the charged sale. This testimony completed the narrative of events leading up to defendant's arrest, explained why defendant was targeted by the police, and tended to prove that defendant acted in concert in the charged crime ( see e.g. People v. Carter, 77 N.Y.2d 95, 107, cert denied 499 U.S. 967; People v. Rosello, 298 A.D.2d 212, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 585; People v. Alexander, 215 A.D.2d 116, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 840). Moreover, this testimony was clearly probative of possession with intent to sell, and "the People were not required to rest on the inferences flowing from the charged sale" ( People v. Mendoza, 245 A.D.2d 177, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 975, citing People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245). Furthermore, the evidence carried little suggestion of criminal propensity ( People v. Pressley, 216 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 800).

While it would have been preferable for the court to have delivered a limiting instruction immediately after receiving the uncharged crimes evidence, and to have included specific language prohibiting the jury from considering criminal propensity, the court's final charge was sufficient to prevent any prejudice ( see People v. Archibald, 211 A.D.2d 451, lv denied, 85 N.Y.2d 935).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 17, 2004
4 A.D.3d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMEL BROWN…

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

Date published: Feb 17, 2004

Citations

4 A.D.3d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
771 N.Y.S.2d 640

Citing Cases

People v. Wilkens

The court did not err in allowing a witness to testify that, shortly before the shooting, he was with…

People v. Lynch

However, evidence of uncharged crimes or acts may be admissible to show, inter alia, the defendant's intent…