PEOPLE v. WILSON (2008)

 On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [b][v] ) and harassment in the second degree (§ 240.26[1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to preclude the People from presenting evidence of a prior incident of domestic violence by defendant against the complainant.   We reject defendant's contention, inasmuch as that evidence was relevant to establish defendant's motive and intent (see People v. Freece, 46 A.D.3d 1428, 848 N.Y.S.2d 468, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 811, 857 N.Y.S.2d 44, 886 N.E.2d 809;  People v. Melendez, 8 A.D.3d 680, 778 N.Y.S.2d 894, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 741, 786 N.Y.S.2d 820, 820 N.E.2d 299;  People v. Mathias, 7 A.D.3d 824, 825-826, 776 N.Y.S.2d 622).   We note in addition that the court properly allowed the People to present evidence of defendant's prior violence only with respect to the complainant herein.   Also contrary to the contention of defendant, evidence of his alleged drug use was admissible to complete the complainant's narrative (see generally People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932, 373 N.Y.S.2d 543, 335 N.E.2d 850).   In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting the evidence of the prior incident of domestic violence and the evidence of defendant's alleged drug use, we conclude that the error is harmless (see People v. Grant, 7 N.Y.3d 421, 424, 823 N.Y.S.2d 757, 857 N.E.2d 52;  see generally People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).   Finally, the court properly denied defendant's request to charge criminal contempt in the second degree (§ 215.50 [3] ) as a lesser included offense of criminal contempt in the first degree because no reasonable view of the evidence “would support a finding that [defendant] committed the lesser offense but not the greater” (People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61, 63, 453 N.Y.S.2d 660, 439 N.E.2d 376;  see People v. Sullivan, 284 A.D.2d 917, 918, 728 N.Y.S.2d 320, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 942, 733 N.Y.S.2d 382, 759 N.E.2d 381, 97 N.Y.2d 658, 737 N.Y.S.2d 59, 762 N.E.2d 937).

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

MEMORANDUM: