People v. Foster

• Citation: 295 A.D.2d 110,743 N.Y.S.2d 429
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>PATRICK FOSTER, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 04 June 2002
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

295 A.D.2d 110

743 N.Y.S.2d 429

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v.PATRICK FOSTER, Appellant.

Decided June 4, 2002.

Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

The prosecution alleged that, on January 19, 1996, around 5:30 P.M., Susan Luciano had just boarded a crowded uptown IRT Number 1 or 9 train at the 72nd Street Station when she felt a tug on her pocket book. She looked into her pocket book and noticed that her credit card holder was missing. She did not see and could not identify the thief. Luciano got off the train at the West 79th Street Station and the train continued uptown. The train pulled into the West 96th Street Station at about 5:40 P.M., and a commotion ensued on the train while it was stopped. Two police officers working at the station, Alexander Figueroa and Wilbert Ellis, responded to the commotion, and Fernando Martinez, a passenger, directed their attention to appellant, whom Martinez believed was acting suspiciously. Officer Figueroa approached appellant and asked him to step off the train. As appellant did so, Officer Figueroa observed him lean toward the train as if he were trying to drop something into the gap between the subway car and platform. Figueroa grabbed the item, which turned out to be Luciano's credit card holder, from appellant's hand. Appellant subsequently attempted to flee the scene but was apprehended near the station turnstiles.

Prior to trial, defense counsel moved to preclude testimony regarding an uncharged crime, which was the source of the commotion at the West 96th Street subway stop. Specifically, counsel sought to preclude testimony by Martinez that, while the train was stopped with its doors open, Martinez heard a passenger on the train—Richard Sachs—shout "he took my wallet!"; that, as Sachs was shouting those words, Martinez saw defendant and another man back out of the subway car; that Martinez observed defendant, moving suspiciously, push his way back into the subway car through another door while the other man walked away down the platform; and that Martinez alerted Officers Figueroa and Ellis and told them what he had observed. In addition, defendant sought to exclude testimony by Officer Figueroa relating the hearsay statements made to him by Martinez as to what he had observed and reported to Figueroa. No property belonging to Sachs was found in defendant's possession and he was not charged with any crime related to Sachs.

The prosecutor contended that the evidence that the defense sought to exclude was necessary to "complete the narrative" and explain why Officer Figueroa approached defendant. Defense counsel countered that why Figueroa approached defendant was not in issue, nor was it probative of any other issue in the case, particularly since the defense did not intend to assert any claim that the officers acted improperly or to challenge their credibility. Moreover, argued defendant, the objectionable evidence was unduly prejudicial, suggesting as it did that defendant had taken Sachs's wallet, a crime with which he had not been charged, and, further, that defendant had a propensity for subway pickpocketing, the crime for which he was charged.

The trial court denied defendant's motion and allowed the testimony of Martinez and Officer Figueroa to "complete the narrative" and explain why Officer Figueroa approached defendant. The court did, however, instruct the jury that the testimony related to the theft of Sachs's wallet was not to be considered as evidence "bearing on the guilt of the defendant as far as Miss Luciano's credit cards," but only as an "explanation of what led up to the defendant's arrest."

Evidence of uncharged crimes is generally inadmissible in a criminal trial because the "defendant is entitled to have the jury determine his guilt or innocence solely upon evidence tending to prove the crime charged and uninfluenced by irrelevant and prejudicial facts and circumstances." (People v Cook, 42 NY2d 204, 208.) However, uncharged crime evidence may be admitted if it helps to establish an element of the crime charged or is relevant to some recognized exception to the general rule (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241). In People v Molineux (168 NY 264, 293), the Court of Appeals instructed that uncharged crimes may be considered to establish such fundamental matters as intent, motive, knowledge, common scheme or plan, or defendant's identity. The Molineux list is illustrative, not exhaustive (People v Jackson, 39 NY2d 64, 68). In addition, evidence of uncharged crimes may be admitted as necessary background material when relevant to a contested issue in the case (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241-242; People v Montanez, 41 NY2d 53, 58) or to complete the narrative of...