PEOPLE v. BROWN (2000)

 We reject the contention that defendant was deprived a fair trial when the prosecutor commented on and elicited evidence concerning two uncharged crimes without obtaining a Ventimiglia ruling.   First, testimony that defendant was in possession of bolt cutters and copper pipe at the time of his arrest is not evidence of an uncharged crime because possession of those items is not illegal (see, People v. Powell, 209 A.D.2d 879, 881, 619 N.Y.S.2d 788, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 1037, 623 N.Y.S.2d 193, 647 N.E.2d 465).   That evidence, moreover, was necessary “to complete the narrative of the episode” (People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932, 932-933, 373 N.Y.S.2d 543, 335 N.E.2d 850) and to explain why the police pursued and arrested defendant (see, People v. Conyers, 160 A.D.2d 318, 319, 553 N.Y.S.2d 732, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 786, 559 N.Y.S.2d 991, 559 N.E.2d 685).   Second, defendant was not accused of stealing copper pipe from 15 Rosewood Terrace, one of the locations that he allegedly burglarized.   Thus, Ventimiglia was not implicated and the prosecutor was not required to seek an advance ruling with respect to the admissibility of evidence that copper pipe had been removed from that address (see, People v. Kyser, 183 A.D.2d 238, 242, 591 N.Y.S.2d 276, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 888, 597 N.Y.S.2d 949, 613 N.E.2d 981).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: