People v Williams (James)

[*1] People v Williams (James) 2010 NY Slip Op 50232(U) [26 Misc 3d 139(A)] Decided on February 17, 2010 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 17, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, JJ
570114/08.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

James Williams, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Rita M. Mella, J.), rendered January 24, 2008, after a jury trial, convicting him of aggravated harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Rita M. Mella, J.), rendered January 24, 2008, affirmed.

We find that the trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of aggravated harassment in the second degree (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). Moreover, after applying the appropriate standard of review (see id. at 348-349), we conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The jury rationally could conclude that defendant's telephonic statement to complainant that defendant was "going to blow [complainant's] head off" demonstrated the requisite intent "to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm" and was made "in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm" (Penal Law § 240.30[1][a]).

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in admitting limited Molineux (People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]) evidence, since that evidence was probative of defendant's motive and intent and provided background information explaining defendant's animosity toward the complainant (see People v Collins,29 AD3d 434 [2006]; People v Mehmeti, 279 AD2d 420 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 832 [2001]). The probative value of this evidence outweighed any potential prejudicial effect, which was minimized by the court's limiting instructions.

With respect to defendant's argument regarding the prosecutor's summation, although a few isolated statements by the prosecutor may have been better left unsaid, those statements were not part of a pattern of misconduct and do not warrant reversal (see People v Ortiz, 39 AD3d 423 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 925 [2007]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
Decision Date: February 17, 2010