PEOPLE v. LENDORE

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ronnie LENDORE, appellant.

Decided: January 30, 2007

ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P., STEPHEN G. CRANE, PETER B. SKELOS, and STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Chadbourne & Parke, LLP [Jaeyoun J. Kim and Thomas E. Butler] of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, and Charles A. Michael of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), rendered October 7, 2003, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant was charged with assaulting the complainant by shooting him with a shotgun.   At trial, two witnesses testified that before the incident the defendant had shown them a shotgun.   The defendant contends that the admission of this testimony deprived him of his right to a fair trial because the evidence was not relevant.   However, the evidence was relevant because it tended to show that the defendant had the means to commit the crime.   Therefore, the trial court properly admitted the testimony (see People v. Avincola, 162 A.D.2d 288, 289, 556 N.Y.S.2d 877).   The defendant's remaining arguments regarding the admission of this trial testimony are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740, 743-744, 723 N.Y.S.2d 111, 746 N.E.2d 166;  People v. Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720, 722, 447 N.Y.S.2d 145, 431 N.E.2d 630, cert. denied 456 U.S. 1010, 102 S.Ct. 2304, 73 L.Ed.2d 1306;  People v. Okon, 184 A.D.2d 664, 584 N.Y.S.2d 869).

 Evidence of flight is admissible as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt (see People v. Shepherd, 176 A.D.2d 369, 370, 574 N.Y.S.2d 596;  People v. Yaghnam, 135 A.D.2d 763, 764, 522 N.Y.S.2d 668).   Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly admitted evidence that he left the country approximately one week after the incident notwithstanding the fact that the defendant returned to New York after only two weeks in Grenada (see People v. Fama, 212 A.D.2d 542, 543, 622 N.Y.S.2d 732;  People v. Shepherd, supra;  People v. Yaghnam, supra).

Copied to clipboard