The People, etc., respondent, v. Kevin Crichlow, appellant.

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The People, etc., respondent, v. Kevin Crichlow, appellant.

2008-05900 (Ind.No. 1283/07)

Decided: December 28, 2010

JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P. RANDALL T. ENG CHERYL E. CHAMBERS L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Alexis A. Ascher of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Lori Glachman, and Adam Koelsch of counsel), for respondent. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the People to elicit testimony from police officers that a warrant existed for the defendant ‘s arrest and that the officers were present at the defendant's apartment on the date of the incident to execute that warrant.   This limited testimony, which did not include any underlying information regarding the issuance of the warrant itself, and was coupled with proper limiting instructions, was relevant to establish the defendant's motive for committing the crimes of which he was convicted.   The testimony also was necessary to provide background information establishing the basis for the officers' actions, and was more probative than prejudicial (see People v Jenkins, 49 AD3d 780;  People v McMurray, 271 A.D.2d 460;  People v Robinson, 200 A.D.2d 693, 694).

Submitted-December 10, 2010


Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered June 17, 2008, convicting him of arson in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.



Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

Copied to clipboard