People v Armstead

People v Armstead 2014 NY Slip Op 04504 Decided on June 18, 2014 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 18, 2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
JEFFREY A. COHEN
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
2012-00751
(Ind. No. 299/11)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Tareef Armstead, also known as Tareef J. Armstead, appellant.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William A. Loeb of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered January 13, 2012, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly permitted the prosecutor to present evidence at trial and to comment on that evidence both in opening and closing statements regarding a shooting that occurred just minutes prior to the shooting that the defendant was charged with committing. This evidence was relevant, as it served to provide necessary background information and to complete the narrative of events leading up to the second shooting (see People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the rule prohibiting the admission into evidence of a defendant's uncharged criminal or immoral conduct is not applicable (see People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264), because the defendant was never implicated in the commission of the first shooting (see People v Kyser, 183 AD2d 238, 242). Indeed, the Supreme Court repeatedly gave a proper limiting instruction as to the purpose of this evidence.

BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court