People v. Satiro

• Decision Date: 27 July 1987
• Citation: 132 A.D.2d 717,518 N.Y.S.2d 194
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John SATIRO, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 194

518 N.Y.S.2d 194

132 A.D.2d 717

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. John SATIRO, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

July 27, 1987.

Stephen P. Scaring, P.C., Mineola (Laurie Stein Hershey, of counsel), for appellant.

Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Mark D. Cohen, of counsel), for respondent.

Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, KUNZEMAN and KOOPER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.), rendered July 1, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends, inter alia, that he was deprived of a fair trial by the introduction into evidence of a notebook and expert testimony with respect thereto which indicated his significant involvement with the sale of cocaine. We disagree.

It is well settled that evidence of prior uncharged criminal conduct is not admissible on the People's direct case when its sole purpose is to show the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime charged (see, People v. Santarelli, 49 N.Y.2d 241, 247, 425 N.Y.S.2d 77, 401 N.E.2d 199, rearg. denied 49 N.Y.2d 918, 428 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 405 N.E.2d 712; People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 46-47, 421 N.Y.S.2d 341, 396 N.E.2d 735; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286). Nevertheless, such evidence has been held admissible, in an appropriate case, for the purpose of proving some fact other than criminal propensity such as intent or motive (see, People v. Molineux, supra, 168 N.Y. at 313, 61 N.E. 286; People v. Santarelli, supra, 49 N.Y.2d at 247-248, 425 N.Y.S.2d 77, 401 N.E.2d 199; People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364, 401 N.Y.S.2d 479, 372 N.E.2d 320). The process of determining whether or not to admit particular evidence involves a balancing of the degree of probativeness as to the crime charged against the potential for prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 359-360, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59). That determination rests in the broad discretionary power of the trial court (see, People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 244, 299 N.Y.S.2d 817, 247 N.E.2d 642, cert. denied 396 U.S. 846, 90 S.Ct. 103, 24 L.Ed.2d 96; People v. Short, 110 A.D.2d 205, 213, 494 N.Y.S.2d 19, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 657, 499 N.Y.S.2d 1054, 490 N.E.2d 570), and its exercise is to be based upon a proper assessment of the relevant factors (see, People v. Ventimiglia, supra, 52 N.Y.2d at 359-360, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59; People v. Sudler, 100 A.D.2d 915, 916, 474 N.Y.S.2d 575).

A review of the record indicates that the trial court conducted a...