People v. Grant
| Decision Date | 13 September 1984 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony GRANT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Linda Kingsley Long, Albany, for appellant.
Sol Greenberg, Dist. Atty., Albany (George H. Barber, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and CASEY, WEISS, LEVINE and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County rendered June 9, 1983, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of promoting prostitution in the second degree and coercion in the first degree.
Our principal task upon this appeal is to determine whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting into evidence uncharged crimes committed both prior and subsequent to the crimes charged in the indictment. Defendant was charged with promoting prostitution in the second degree by compelling one Eva Gardner by force and intimidation to engage in acts of prostitution within the City and County of Albany during the latter part of March, 1982. Similarly, defendant was indicted for the crime of coercion in the first degree by compelling Gardner to engage in conduct from which she had a legal right to abstain by the use of physical force such that she was fearful that if she refused further physical acts against her person would occur. These acts constituting the crime charged also were alleged to have occurred within the City and County of Albany during the latter part of March, 1982.
During the trial, Gardner testified as to her conduct as a prostitute for defendant prior to the dates charged in the indictment and, further, testified extensively about a trip to New York City with defendant, following the date of the acts alleged to have occurred in Albany County. She testified that she was housed in six different motels in New York City where she was compelled to engage in prostitution for the pecuniary gain of defendant, her pimp. Gardner testified that when she refused to act upon the command of defendant, she was brutally beaten and on one occasion painfully injured when defendant forced a hot curling iron into her vagina.
While it is true that such testimony is highly inflammatory and irreparably prejudicial when offered and received to show that a defendant is of a criminal bent or character and is thus likely to have committed the crime charged (People v. Molineaux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286; s...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Noriega
...victim may be highly probative of identity and a common scheme or plan directed against the same victim. In People v. Grant, 104 A.D.2d 674, 479 N.Y.S.2d 914 (3d Dept., 1984), the Appellate Division, Third Department held that in the trial of a defendant for coercing a woman into acts of pr......
-
People v. Jones
...979 N.E.2d 817 [2012], reconsideration denied 20 N.Y.3d 1059, 962 N.Y.S.2d 610, 985 N.E.2d 920 [2013] ; see People v. Grant , 104 A.D.2d 674, 674-675, 479 N.Y.S.2d 914 [3d Dept. 1984] ), and the court's instructions with regard to the proper use of such information were appropriate. We have......
-
People v. Johnson
...crimes. See People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 47-48, 421 N.Y.S.2d 341, 396 N.E.2d 735 (1979). Compare People v. Grant, 104 A.D.2d 674, 675, 479 N.Y.S.2d 914 (3rd Dept.1984). The modus operandi of the burglary and violent robbery at issue also lacks sufficient similarity with the prior larce......
-
People v. Gomez
...A.D.3d 1748, 1749, 902 N.Y.S.2d 276 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 802, 908 N.Y.S.2d 162, 934 N.E.2d 896 [2010] ; People v. Grant, 104 A.D.2d 674, 675, 479 N.Y.S.2d 914 [3d Dept. 1984] ), and their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.Defendant's claim that the sentencin......