PEOPLE v. JONES (2001)

 On appeal from a judgment convicting him of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in admitting evidence of prior uncharged assaults and threats by defendant against the complainant.   We reject that contention.   Evidence of prior uncharged crimes and bad acts is admissible “if it helps to establish some element of the crime under consideration or is relevant because of some recognized exception to the general rule” prohibiting the admission of such evidence, provided that the probative value of the evidence exceeds its potential to prejudice defendant (People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808;  see, People v. Cook, 93 N.Y.2d 840, 841, 688 N.Y.S.2d 89, 710 N.E.2d 654;  Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 4-515 [Farrell 11th ed] ).   Here, defendant was charged with unlawfully entering the complainant's dwelling with intent to commit a crime and causing physical injury to a nonparticipant (see, Penal Law § 140.30[2] ), and with intentionally causing the complainant serious physical injury (see, Penal Law § 120.05[1] ).   It was proper for the People to show such intent circumstantially, by evidence of defendant's prior acts and threats of violence toward the complainant (see, People v. Lee, 284 A.D.2d 412, 726 N.Y.S.2d 284;  People v. Mehmeti, 279 A.D.2d 420, 421, 719 N.Y.S.2d 574, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 832, 729 N.Y.S.2d 452, 754 N.E.2d 212;  People v. Guiteau, 267 A.D.2d 1094, 701 N.Y.S.2d 230, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 920, 708 N.Y.S.2d 359, 729 N.E.2d 1158;  People v. Hill, 163 A.D.2d 813, 558 N.Y.S.2d 345, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 987, 563 N.Y.S.2d 775, 565 N.E.2d 524).   The probative value of the evidence on the issue of defendant's intent outweighed its potential to prejudice defendant (see, People v. Mehmeti, supra, at 421, 719 N.Y.S.2d 574;  People v. Guiteau, supra ).

 Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting the evidence, we conclude that defendant was not thereby prejudiced.   The People presented overwhelming evidence of the assault, and defendant was acquitted of the specific charge, burglary, concerning which the Molineux evidence was admitted (see, People v. Young, 255 A.D.2d 907, 683 N.Y.S.2d 678, affd. 94 N.Y.2d 171, 701 N.Y.S.2d 309, 723 N.E.2d 58, rearg. denied 94 N.Y.2d 876, 705 N.Y.S.2d 7, 726 N.E.2d 484).   In any event, this was a bench trial, and we may presume that the Trial Judge properly considered only competent evidence in reaching his verdict (see, People v. Arnold, 188 A.D.2d 1020, 1021, 591 N.Y.S.2d 666, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 836, 595 N.Y.S.2d 735, 611 N.E.2d 774;  People v. Mann, 172 A.D.2d 1010, 1010-1011, 569 N.Y.S.2d 270, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 969, 574 N.Y.S.2d 949, 580 N.E.2d 421).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: