PEOPLE v. GLASS

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jacqueline GLASS, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: March 31, 1999

PRESENT:  PINE, J.P., WISNER, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER and CALLAHAN, JJ. Stephanie Jeanne Batcheller of counsel, Monroe County Public Defender, Rochester, for defendant-appellant. Loretta S. Courtney of counsel, Monroe County Dist. Atty. Office, Rochester, for plaintiff-respondent.

 Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of four counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45[2] ) based upon her possession of four stolen credit cards.   Defendant contends that County Court erred in admitting testimony of uncharged conduct of defendant and by failing to conduct a Ventimiglia hearing (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59) prior to receipt of that testimony.   We disagree.   Although defendant was not charged with possession of a stolen JC Penney's credit card, the testimony that defendant presented that credit card to the sales clerk at JC Penney's was necessary “to complete the narrative of the episode” (People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932, 932-933, 373 N.Y.S.2d 543, 335 N.E.2d 850).   That testimony explains why defendant was stopped by store security personnel and taken back to the security office, where the four stolen credit cards at issue were found in an area where defendant had made a “stuffing” motion.   In addition, where, as here, the parties were aware of the content of the testimony of the sales clerk by reason of his prior sworn testimony before the Grand Jury and the testimony at the pretrial Wade hearing, there was no need to conduct a hearing (see, People v. Berger, 188 A.D.2d 1073, 1074, 592 N.Y.S.2d 173, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 881, 597 N.Y.S.2d 942, 613 N.E.2d 974).  Furthermore, the court gave an appropriate curative instruction concerning the limited purpose for which that testimony was offered.   Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: