PEOPLE v. JADOONANAN (2011)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered June 25, 2009, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

One evening, after arguing with his mother in her home over money, the defendant pulled out a gun and shot his mother's boyfriend, killing him.   At trial, the People were permitted to elicit testimony that the defendant's father physically abused his mother for years, and stabbed her 17 times, a crime for which the father was incarcerated at the time of the incident at issue in this matter.   They were also permitted to elicit testimony from the mother that the defendant told her periodically, during the time the defendant was between 8 and 17 years old, that she should leave the father and not be with anyone else.   The People were also permitted to elicit testimony as a result of a Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) that the mother believed the defendant had a gun in his possession about a month before the shooting.   The defendant contends that these evidentiary rulings deprived him of a fair trial.

 The hearing court's Sandoval ruling permitting the People to elicit testimony that the mother believed the defendant possessed a gun about a month before the shooting was a provident exercise of its discretion (see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 207–208, 738 N.Y.S.2d 663, 764 N.E.2d 963;  People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 262, 367 N.Y.S.2d 236, 326 N.E.2d 804, cert. denied 423 U.S. 861, 96 S.Ct. 116, 46 L.Ed.2d 88;  People v. Springer, 13 A.D.3d 657, 787 N.Y.S.2d 386).

 The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in permitting the People to introduce testimony that his father abused his mother is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944, 620 N.Y.S.2d 814, 644 N.E.2d 1370;  People v. Hamm, 42 A.D.3d 550, 839 N.Y.S.2d 807).   In any event, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting that testimony, as well as testimony that the defendant repeatedly told his mother that she should leave the father and not be with anyone else (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 424–425, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828).

The defendant's trial attorney provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).