People v. Henry

• Decision Date: 29 October 1990
• Citation: 561 N.Y.S.2d 297,166 A.D.2d 720
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lancelot HENRY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 297

561 N.Y.S.2d 297

166 A.D.2d 720

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lancelot HENRY, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Oct. 29, 1990.

Philip L. Weinstein and Coudert Brothers, New York City (David A. Schwartz-Leeper, of counsel), for appellant (one brief filed).

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Nikki Kowalski and Forrest Strauss, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and HARWOOD, MILLER and RITTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Zweibel, J.), rendered October 19, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant sold a quantity of cocaine to an undercover police officer. The undercover officer returned to the scene of the crime approximately five to ten minutes later and attempted to make a second purchase. The defendant was immediately arrested. Even though the court warned the District Attorney not to elicit any testimony as to any conversation that the undercover officer might have had with the defendant, during direct examination the officer stated that he had "a drug offer transaction" with the defendant on the second occasion.

It is well established that while evidence of unconnected, uncharged criminal conduct is inadmissible if offered only to establish the defendant's criminal propensities, it is admissible if offered for a relevant purpose, and is competent to prove the crime charged by means of establishing motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan, or identity (see, People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364, 366, 401 N.Y.S.2d 479, 372 N.E.2d 320; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286). Such evidence is also admissible to complete the narrative of the crime charged, provided its probative value outweighs any possible prejudice (see, People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932, 373 N.Y.S.2d 543, 335 N.E.2d 850; People v. Tabora, 139 A.D.2d 540, 541, 527 N.Y.S.2d 36; People v. Seaberry, 138 A.D.2d 422, 525 N.Y.S.2d 704). Here, the evidence of the subsequent uncharged attempted drug sale was admissible to further establish the identity of the defendant and to complete the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest.

The defendant's remaining contention that the...