People v. Morris

• Decision Date: 08 March 2011
• Citation: 82 A.D.3d 908,918 N.Y.S.2d 198
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mario MORRIS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

918 N.Y.S.2d 198 82 A.D.3d 908 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mario MORRIS, appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. March 8, 2011.

Stephen J. Pittari, White Plains, N.Y. (Salvatore A. Gaetani of counsel), for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Maria I. Wager, Lois Cullen Valerio, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Wetzel, J.), rendered May 29, 2009, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, criminal contempt in the second degree, stalking in the second degree, resisting arrest, and aggravated harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to elicit evidence of prior bad acts involving the defendant and the victim ( see People v. Leeson, 12 N.Y.3d 823, 826-827, 880 N.Y.S.2d 895, 908 N.E.2d 885; People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263; People v. Marji, 43 A.D.3d 961, 841 N.Y.S.2d 361). The evidence was properly admitted as relevant background material to enable the jury to understand the defendant's relationship with the victim ( see People v. Leeson, 12 N.Y.3d at 826-827, 880 N.Y.S.2d 895, 908 N.E.2d 885; People v. Cook, 93 N.Y.2d 840, 688 N.Y.S.2d 89, 710 N.E.2d 654; People v. Marji, 43 A.D.3d at 961, 841 N.Y.S.2d 361) and to complete the narrative ( see People v. Johnson, 45 A.D.3d 606, 845 N.Y.S.2d 400; People v. Marji, 43 A.D.3d at 961, 841 N.Y.S.2d 361; People v. Le Grand, 76 A.D.2d 706, 710, 431 N.Y.S.2d 850). Moreover, the probative value of that evidence outweighed any prejudice to the defendant, particularly in light of the County Court's cautionary instructions that the evidence was to be considered only on the issue of the victim's state of mind, which was an element of the crimes of criminal contempt in the first degree and stalking in the second degree ( see Penal Law § 120.40[5][b]; §§ 120.50[3], 120.55 [2], 215.51[b][iii]; People v. Cook, 93 N.Y.2d at 840, 688 N.Y.S.2d 89, 710 N.E.2d 654; People v. Marji, 43 A.D.3d at 961, 841 N.Y.S.2d 361; People v. Negrette, 218 A.D.2d 751, 630 N.Y.S.2d 780).

The defendant's contention that his convictions of criminal contempt in the first degree and stalking in the second degree were not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

The County Court erroneously admitted evidence that the defendant referred to a "casket" in correspondence to the victim, as the evidence was not probative of any element of the crimes with which the defendant was charged ( see People v. Leeson, 12 N.Y.3d at 826-827, 880 N.Y.S.2d 895, 908 N.E.2d 885). However, the error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions ( see People v. Grant, 7 N.Y.3d 421, 424-425, 823 N.Y.S.2d 757, 857 N.E.2d 52; People v. Brown, 98 N.Y.2d 226, 235, 746 N.Y.S.2d 422, 774 N.E.2d 186).

The...