From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Morgan

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 13, 2006
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 51422 (N.Y. App. Term 2006)

Opinion

2005-121 NCR.

Decided July 13, 2006.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Norman St. George, J.), rendered January 4, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and menacing in the second degree.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and LIPPMAN, JJ.


In this prosecution for criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01) and menacing in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.14), the trial court properly permitted the People to elicit testimony from the complainant about defendant's prior bad acts. Although it would have been better if the trial court had given the jury a limiting instruction when the testimony was received and/or addressed the testimony concerning the defendant's prior bad acts in its charge to the jury ( see e.g. People v. Williams, 50 NY2d 996, 998; People v. Thomas, 26 AD3d 241; People v. DeJesus, 24 AD3d 464; People v. Melendez, 8 AD3d 680; People v. McCarthy, 293 AD2d 490, 492), such evidence was, in any event, properly admitted as relevant background material to enable the jury to understand the nature of defendant's turbulent domestic relationship with complainant as well as to establish defendant's intent ( see People v. Till, 87 NY2d 835; People v. Montanez, 41 NY2d 53, 58; see also People v. James, 19 AD3d 616; People v. Gorham, 17 AD3d 858; People v. Melendez, 8 AD3d 680, supra; People v. Gordon, 308 AD2d 461; People v. Bedi, 299 AD2d 556; People v. Wright, 288 AD2d 409; People v. Atkins, 7 AD2d 393). We note that the prejudicial effect was limited by the court's directive that the complainant could only testify concerning the nature of the relationship, but not as to any prior assaults by defendant.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see People v. Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see People v. Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). We find no basis to disturb the jury's determination.

Rudolph, P.J., Angiolillo and Lippman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Morgan

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 13, 2006
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 51422 (N.Y. App. Term 2006)
Case details for

People v. Morgan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TED MORGAN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 13, 2006

Citations

2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 51422 (N.Y. App. Term 2006)