Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Edward JONES, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered June 26, 2002, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the admission of testimony regarding his past acts of abuse toward the complainant, and testimony regarding his and the complainant's drug use, is in part, unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. This evidence was relevant in that it was “inextricably interwoven with the events leading to the crime[s] charged, was essential to ‘complete the narrative,’ and was necessary, as background material, to facilitate the jury's understanding of the relationship [between] the parties” (People v. Walker, 165 A.D.2d 674, 564 N.Y.S.2d 245 [citations omitted]; see People v. Ramsey, 1 A.D.3d 538, 767 N.Y.S.2d 264, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 600, 776 N.Y.S.2d 232, 808 N.E.2d 368). Since the probative value of this testimony outweighed any prejudice to the defendant, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting it (see People v. Filipe, 7 A.D.3d 539, 776 N.Y.S.2d 94).
The defendant also contends that the prosecutor's statements during summation regarding the complainant's testimony constituted reversible error. The defendant failed to preserve this argument for appellate review, as he failed to move for a mistrial, and his only objection during the summation was sustained and followed by a curative instruction (see CPL 470.05[2]; see also People v. Williams, 305 A.D.2d 703, 759 N.Y.S.2d 684; People v. Scotti, 220 A.D.2d 543, 632 N.Y.S.2d 209). In any event, the challenged remarks either were fair comment on the evidence, permissive rhetorical comment, or responsive to the defense counsel's summation (see People v. McHarris, 297 A.D.2d 824, 748 N.Y.S.2d 57; People v. Torres, 121 A.D.2d 663, 664, 503 N.Y.S.2d 659).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 06, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)