People v. Addison

• Decision Date: 05 June 2013
• Citation: 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04015,966 N.Y.S.2d 217,107 A.D.3d 730
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Teshena ADDISON, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

107 A.D.3d 730
966 N.Y.S.2d 217
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04015

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Teshena ADDISON, appellant.

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

June 5, 2013.

[966 N.Y.S.2d 218]

Robert DiDio, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SANDRA L. SGROI, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

[107 A.D.3d 730]Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered July 29, 2011, convicting her of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the admission into evidence of [107 A.D.3d 731]three surveillance videotape recordings is without merit. Upon our review of the record, including the challenged recordings, we conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting them into evidence ( see generally People v. Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80, 84, 688 N.Y.S.2d 101, 710 N.E.2d 665;People v. Griffin, 98 A.D.3d 688, 689, 950 N.Y.S.2d 161). The defendant's claim that the equipment used to play the videotape recordings for the jury produced an indistinct image involves matter dehors the record and, therefore, may not be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v. Ramos, 61 A.D.3d 783, 784, 877 N.Y.S.2d 177;People v. Tetrault, 53 A.D.3d 558, 560, 861 N.Y.S.2d 408).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting rebuttal evidence of a prior bad act allegedly committed by the defendant against the complainant in late 2007. This evidence was relevant to the defendant's motive, provided background information on the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the complainant, and refuted the defendant's claims regarding the nature of their interactions leading up to the alleged crime at issue ( see People v. Gamble, 18 N.Y.3d 386, 397–398, 941 N.Y.S.2d 1, 964 N.E.2d 372;People v. Delancey, 94 A.D.3d 1015, 1016, 942 N.Y.S.2d 170;see generally People v. Blair, 90 N.Y.2d 1003, 1004–1005, 665 N.Y.S.2d 629, 688 N.E.2d 503). The probative value of such evidence outweighed any prejudice to the defendant, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's instructions to the jury regarding use of this evidence ( see People v. Delancey, 94 A.D.3d at 1016, 942 N.Y.S.2d 170;People v. Rock, 65 A.D.3d 558, 558, 882 N.Y.S.2d 907).

The Supreme Court nevertheless improvidently exercised its discretion...