People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 27 September 1996
• Citation: People v. Williams, 648 N.Y.S.2d 62, 231 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gregory WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 62

648 N.Y.S.2d 62

231 A.D.2d 868

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gregory WILLIAMS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

Sept. 27, 1996.

Linda S. Reynolds by Barbara Davies, Buffalo, for appellant.

Kevin M. Dillon by Paul Williams, Buffalo, for respondent.

Before DENMAN, P.J., and LAWTON, WESLEY, CALLAHAN and BALIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02[4]. Defendant contends that County Court's failure to give correct and complete limiting instructions on the prior bad act evidence introduced by the People denied him his constitutional right to a fair trial. Because defendant failed to object to the court's instructions, that issue has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Mediak, 217 A.D.2d 961, 962, 631 N.Y.S.2d 264, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 848, 638 N.Y.S.2d 607, 661 N.E.2d 1389). In any event, when read as a whole, the limiting instructions correctly conveyed the proper legal standard (see, People v. Beam, 57 N.Y.2d 241, 250, 455 N.Y.S.2d 575, 441 N.E.2d 1093). The court properly instructed the jury that the testimony about the prior bad acts was offered for the limited purpose of proving motive or intent and not for the purpose of proving that defendant had a criminal propensity (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241-242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 359, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293, 61 N.E. 286; People v. Heath, 175 A.D.2d 562, 563, 572 N.Y.S.2d 228).

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's application for youthful offender treatment (see, People v. Smalls, 219 A.D.2d 865, 632 N.Y.S.2d 1004). We conclude that the sentence...