From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Chadwick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 2, 1996
227 A.D.2d 123 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 2, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.).


Defendant made no showing that it was necessary for the court to appoint an expert (County Law § 722-c) to testify about the purported availability of scientific tests which were not performed in this case. In any event, in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, particularly the testimony of eyewitnesses and defendant's highly inculpatory spontaneous statements, any error in denying the request was harmless ( People v. Gilmore, 66 N.Y.2d 863; People v. Arroyo, 162 A.D.2d 337, affd 77 N.Y.2d 947). Defendant was also permitted to question police witnesses about the non-performance of the tests in question.

It was a proper exercise of discretion to permit the introduction of evidence of a prior encounter between defendant and one of the victims, in which defendant allegedly threatened him with a knife, since such evidence was relevant to establish defendant's motive in the shooting, his identity as the shooter and since it provided necessary background material to complete the narrative of the episode ( see, People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835, 837). The probative value of this evidence clearly outweighed its potential for prejudice. Defense counsel's failure to request a limiting instruction with respect to the evidence of uncharged crimes renders the claim unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v. Ayala, 191 A.D.2d 381, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1069), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. We note the jury was never urged to consider this evidence as demonstrating defendant's propensity to commit crimes.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the prosecutor's summation did not deprive him of a fair trial, but rather constituted fair comment on the evidence and a proper response to the summation of defense counsel ( People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399).

We have considered defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Chadwick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 2, 1996
227 A.D.2d 123 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Chadwick

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JERRY CHADWICK…

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

Date published: May 2, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 123 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
641 N.Y.S.2d 297

Citing Cases

Yapor v. Mazzuca

Where intent is at issue, evidence of a previous incident between the defendant and the victim has been…

People v. Sibadan

The court denied the request, and defendant never objected when the testimony was elicited during the trial.…