PEOPLE v. RILEY (2005)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[4] ), reckless endangerment in the second degree (§ 120.20), and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1] ).   The evidence at trial established that defendant's 19-month-old daughter sustained second degree burns on her legs while she was at home with defendant.   Contrary to defendant's contention, evidence of prior injuries to the child presented by the People was admissible to negate the defense of accident or mistake advanced by defendant (see People v. Sachs, 15 A.D.3d 1005, 1006, 788 N.Y.S.2d 743, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 768, 801 N.Y.S.2d 263, 834 N.E.2d 1273;  People v. Hawkins-Rusch, 212 A.D.2d 961, 623 N.Y.S.2d 465, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 910, 627 N.Y.S.2d 333, 650 N.E.2d 1335;  People v. McNeeley, 77 A.D.2d 205, 211, 433 N.Y.S.2d 293), and the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice (see People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808).   The introduction of such evidence “is especially warranted ․ where the crime charged has occurred in the privacy of the home and the facts are not easily unraveled” (People v. Henson, 33 N.Y.2d 63, 72, 349 N.Y.S.2d 657, 304 N.E.2d 358;  see People v. Holloway, 185 A.D.2d 646, 647, 586 N.Y.S.2d 172, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 1027, 592 N.Y.S.2d 677, 607 N.E.2d 824;  McNeeley, 77 A.D.2d at 211, 433 N.Y.S.2d 293).   In addition, we note that County Court instructed the jury that the evidence was to be considered only with respect to defendant's claim that the child was burned because of an accident or a mistake, thus minimizing the prejudicial effect of the evidence (see People v. Engler, 150 A.D.2d 827, 829, 540 N.Y.S.2d 591, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 770, 551 N.Y.S.2d 912, 551 N.E.2d 113).   Finally, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: