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. Timothy GREEN, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered April 24, 2006, convicting him of menacing in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of two prior break-ins to his estranged wife's apartment is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Rosen, 81 N.Y.2d 237, 597 N.Y.S.2d 914, 613 N.E.2d 946). In any event, in light of the defendant's contentions that he did not intend to harm his estranged wife and son with a knife he was carrying during the incident in question, the court properly admitted the evidence of the two prior break-ins, inter alia, to complete the narrative of the event and establish intent (see People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to give proper limiting instructions concerning the jury's use of the testimony regarding his prior bad acts is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Webb, 1 A.D.3d 542, 767 N.Y.S.2d 259). In any event, the court gave an appropriate limiting instruction (cf. People v. Norman, 40 A.D.3d 1128, 837 N.Y.S.2d 694).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the evidence leading to his conviction on one count each of menacing in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree regarding his son was legally insufficient. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
Thank you for your feedback!
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: November 05, 2008
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)