Opinion
2011-11-29
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Chadon MORRIS, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Michelle Vallone of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Michelle Vallone of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Knopf, J.), rendered June 24, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial because the trial court permitted the prosecution to introduce a recording of a telephone call to the 911 emergency number reporting that a person matching the defendant's description committed an uncharged robbery. The challenged evidence was properly admitted to “provide background information as to how and why the police pursued and confronted [the] defendant” ( People v. Tosca, 98 N.Y.2d 660, 661, 746 N.Y.S.2d 276, 773 N.E.2d 1014; see People v. Wilson, 82 A.D.3d 797, 799, 917 N.Y.S.2d 677; People v. Givhan, 78 A.D.3d 730, 731, 911 N.Y.S.2d 83; People v. Stevenson, 67 A.D.3d 605, 889 N.Y.S.2d 182; People v. Jenkins, 49 A.D.3d 780, 853 N.Y.S.2d 629), and the challenged evidence was more probative than prejudicial ( cf. People v. Resek, 3 N.Y.3d 385, 389, 787 N.Y.S.2d 683, 821 N.E.2d 108). Moreover, the trial court nullified any potential prejudice by properly instructing the jury several times as to the limited purpose of this evidence ( see People v. Tosca, 98 N.Y.2d at 661, 746 N.Y.S.2d 276, 773 N.E.2d 1014; People v. Wilson, 82 A.D.3d at 799, 917 N.Y.S.2d 677; People v. Givhan, 78 A.D.3d at 731, 911 N.Y.S.2d 83).