People v. Torres

• Docket Number: 547 KA 20-01575
• Decision Date: 30 June 2023
• Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 03650
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. RAPHAEL C. TORRES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2023 NY Slip Op 03650

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
RAPHAEL C. TORRES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

No. 547 KA 20-01575

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

June 30, 2023

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, OGDEN, AND GREENWOOD, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Suzanne Maxwell Barnes, J.), rendered May 17, 2019. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of robbery in the second degree and robbery in the third degree (two counts).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of one count of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [3]) and two counts of robbery in the third degree (§ 160.05). The charges arose from incidents in which defendant forcibly stole a vehicle and purse from one victim and, the following day, forcibly stole a purse from a second victim.

We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in permitting the People to introduce certain Molineux evidence. The court properly concluded that the evidence "provided necessary background information on the nature of the relationship and placed the charged conduct in context" (People v Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19 [2009]; see People v Swift, 195 A.D.3d 1496, 1499 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1030 [2021]; see generally People v Frankline, 27 N.Y.3d 1113, 1115 [2016]) and that it was relevant to the issues of defendant's intent and motive (see Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d at 19; People v Cung, 112 A.D.3d 1307, 1310 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 961 [2014]). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice to defendant (see Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d at 19; see generally People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242 [1987]). Moreover, the court's repeated limiting instructions minimized any such prejudice (see People v Murray, 185 A.D.3d 1507, 1508 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 974 [2020]; People v Matthews, 142 A.D.3d 1354, 1356 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1125 [2016]).

We reject defendant's contention that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support the conviction of robbery...