Opinion
May 23, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.).
On February 22, 1988, the defendant was observed exchanging glassine envelopes for money prior to selling an undercover officer two glassines of heroin in exchange for pre-recorded money. At trial, evidence of the uncharged crimes, as well as of the glassine envelopes of heroin and money in the defendant's possession, was accepted as probative of the defendant's intent to sell. The Court gave limiting instructions to the jury as to use of the uncharged crime testimony. Defendant, on appeal, claims the acceptance of the uncharged crime testimony was sufficiently prejudicial so as to reach the level of reversible error. We do not agree.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence of uncharged crimes, as the evidence tended to establish a necessary element of the crime charged, i.e., the intent to sell with respect to the possession charge, the defendant having placed his intent specifically in issue. (People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v Diaz, 170 A.D.2d 395.) Prejudice was avoided by the jury instructions. (People v Marin, 157 A.D.2d 521, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 968.)
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.