PEOPLE v. LEACH (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Paul LEACH, appellant.

Decided: March 15, 1999

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., DAVID S. RITTER, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON and GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.

Murray E. Singer, Forest Hills, N.Y., for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Jeanne M. Weisneck of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered February 27, 1996, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly permitted the People's witness to testify concerning a “business transaction” with the defendant on a streetcorner at 1:00 A.M. as it was probative on the issue of her identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the subject crime. Evidence of uncharged crimes may be used to prove identity (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286; see also, People v. Branch, 191 A.D.2d 576, 595 N.Y.S.2d 88). Moreover, any prejudice to the defendant was obviated by the court's limiting instruction immediately after the witness' testimony regarding this encounter (see, People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 49, 421 N.Y.S.2d 341, 396 N.E.2d 735; People v. Brown, 249 A.D.2d 556, 671 N.Y.S.2d 342).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or do not require reversal.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network