Opinion
No. 16132 Ind No. 95/19 Case No. 2020-01371
06-16-2022
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Khalid King, Defendant-Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Elizabeth G. Caldwell of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jillian Lewis of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Elizabeth G. Caldwell of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jillian Lewis of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Acosta, P.J., Kapnick, Friedman, Mendez, Higgitt, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen M. Antignani, J.), rendered January 14, 2020, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2½ to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, including its resolution of alleged inconsistencies in testimony. Defendant's acquittal of one of the original charges does not warrant a different conclusion (see People v Rayam, 94 N.Y.2d 557 [2000]).
The court providently exercised its discretion by admitting carefully limited testimony about uncharged prior domestic violence as background evidence to explain the relationship between defendant and the victim and to place the behavior of both parties in a believable context (see People v Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19 [2009]; People v Levasseur, 133 A.D.3d 411, 411 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1001 [2016]; People v Steinberg, 170 A.D.2d 50, 72-74 [1st Dept 1991], affd 79 N.Y.2d 673 [1992]). The existence of the prior incidents was sufficiently established through the victim's reliable testimony. The probative value of this evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect, which was mitigated by the court's limiting instructions. In any event, any error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230 [1975]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.