Opinion
2016–00996 Ind.No. 8460/13
09-02-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Roberto NIEVES, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Sean H. Murray of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Joyce Slevin, and Abed Z. Bhuyan of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Sean H. Murray of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Joyce Slevin, and Abed Z. Bhuyan of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 640–641, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to elicit testimony regarding the defendant's uncharged criminal behavior against the complainant, and in admitting certain letters sent by the defendant to the complainant and/or her mother, because this evidence provided relevant background information on the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the complainant, placed the charged conduct in context, and was relevant to the defendant's motive and intent (see People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263 ; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293, 61 N.E. 286 ; People v. Stewart, 161 A.D.3d 1108, 1108–1109, 78 N.Y.S.3d 176 ; People v. Beer, 146 A.D.3d 895, 896, 47 N.Y.S.3d 38 ; People v. Henderson, 142 A.D.3d 1104, 1105, 37 N.Y.S.3d 620 ; People v. Fonseca, 121 A.D.3d 915, 916, 993 N.Y.S.2d 381 ; People v. Bermejo, 77 A.D.3d 965, 965, 909 N.Y.S.2d 398 ). Furthermore, the probative value of the evidence outweighed the risk of prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Frumusa, 29 N.Y.3d 364, 373, 57 N.Y.S.3d 103, 79 N.E.3d 495 ; People v. Cass, 18 N.Y.3d 553, 560, 942 N.Y.S.2d 416, 965 N.E.2d 918 ; People v. Henry, 173 A.D.3d 900, 901, 102 N.Y.S.3d 662 ), and the court's limiting instruction to the jury served to alleviate any prejudice from the admission of that evidence (see People v. Gross, 172 A.D.3d 741, 742, 99 N.Y.S.3d 367 ).
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.