Opinion
February 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Curci, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Two police officers were permitted to testify, over objection, that they observed the defendant engage in a prior uncharged drug transaction. The trial court admitted this evidence on the limited issue of the defendant's intent to sell. However, the defendant's intent was clearly inferable from his commission of the charged sale in plain view of the police officer (see, People v. Stevenson, 179 A.D.2d 832; People v. Caviness, 170 A.D.2d 615). Since evidence of the prior transaction was unnecessary to prove the defendant's intent, the prejudicial value of this evidence outweighed its probative value and the court erred in admitting it (see, People v. Hernandez, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264). However, in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and the court's extensive instructions to the jury concerning the limited purpose of the evidence of the uncharged crime, we find this error to be harmless (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Stevenson, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.