PEOPLE v. BRUMFIELD (1997)

We conclude that defendant's conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   We further conclude that County Court properly rejected defense counsel's request to redact the portion of defendant's statement that read, “I didn't want to go back to jail because I had just got out.”   That statement was admissible to show defendant's motive and intent, and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect (see generally, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 359, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59;  People v. Moore, 42 N.Y.2d 421, 428-429, 397 N.Y.S.2d 975, 366 N.E.2d 1330, cert. denied 434 U.S. 987, 98 S.Ct. 617, 54 L.Ed.2d 482;  People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286).   We further conclude that the court's Sandoval ruling that permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant concerning a prior robbery conviction was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Laraby, 219 A.D.2d 817, 632 N.Y.S.2d 355, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 849, 644 N.Y.S.2d 696, 667 N.E.2d 346, 88 N.Y.2d 937, 647 N.Y.S.2d 171, 670 N.E.2d 455;  People v. Cowell, 170 A.D.2d 343, 566 N.Y.S.2d 261, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 993, 571 N.Y.S.2d 919, 575 N.E.2d 405;  People v. Meli, 142 A.D.2d 938, 939, 531 N.Y.S.2d 70, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 921, 532 N.Y.S.2d 856, 529 N.E.2d 186).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: