People v Bowens

[*1] People v Bowens 2010 NY Slip Op 52206(U) [30 Misc 3d 1201(A)] Decided on December 21, 2010 Supreme Court, Kings County D'Emic, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 21, 2010
Supreme Court, Kings County

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,

against

Jerry Bowens, Defendant.



2254/09



A P P E A R A N C E S:

Attorney for the People:

Charles J. Hynes

District Attorney, Kings County

350 Jay Street

Brooklyn, NY 11201

by ADA Michelle Kaminsky

#718-250-3300

Attorneys for the Defendant:

Wayne C. Bodden, Esq.

45 Main Street, Suite 820

Brooklyn, NY 11201

#718-403-9655

Izabel Olszowa Garcia, Esq.

26 Court Street, Suite 1815

Brooklyn, NY 11242

#718-855-4835

Matthew J. D'Emic, J.

Defendant is charged with the murder of his girlfriend, Catherine D'Onofrio. The [*2]prosecution moves to introduce evidence of prior bad acts of the defendant, as well as evidence of the unraveling of his life and relationship with Ms. D'Onofrio on its direct case (People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350).

Specifically, the People seek to elicit evidence that (1) defendant left his wife and moved in with Ms. D'Onofrio when their affair was uncovered; (2) defendant, a police officer, pled guilty to selling drugs to and having sex with a confidential informant; (3) Ms. D'Onofrio ended the relationship after this became public, as evidenced by e-mails, removal of defendant's name on a tattoo, starting a new relationship, and asking the defendant to move out; (4) defendant asking his wife to allow him to live with her as a result; (5) defendant calling and texting Ms. D'Onofrio the night before her death; (6) evidence of weapons and ammunition possessed by the defendant; and (7) existence of a "dead pool" list of potential victims.

The motion is granted.

Contrary to the defense position, all of these matters bear directly on the issues of motive and intent and serve as background information to give the jury a full picture of the relationship between the defendant and the victim.

Human tragedies rarely occur as a single episode, but are the result of a series of related events. All of the matters sought to be introduced demonstrate the unraveling of the defendant's personal and professional life and are highly probative of motive and intent and provide jurors with a full understanding of the parties' relationship (People v Sanchez, 73 AD3d 1093; People v Kelly, 71 AD3d 1520; People v Gorham, 17 AD3d 858; People v Poquee, 9 AD3d 781; People v Bierenbaum, 301 AD2d 119; People v Howard, 285 AD2d 560; People v Harvey, 220 AD2d 959).

In People v Thibeault, 73 AD3d 1237, the court allowed evidence of the parties' relationship as well as statements the victim made about being afraid of the defendant as "relevant in establishing defendant's motive and intent as well as to provide background information on the status of the victim's relationship with the defendant at the time of her murder." (See also: People v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16; People v Till, 87 NY2d 835). Likewise, a victim's state of mind at the time of the commission of the alleged crime has been held to be highly relevant (People v Rock, 65 AD3d 558; People v Melendez, 8 AD3d 680). The matters sought to be proven by the prosecution are not only probative of the defendant's intent, but also refute any assertion of accident (People v James, 19 AD3d 616).

Finally, none of the events or matters sought to be introduced on this motion stand alone. All are inextricably intertwined with the culminating events of Ms. D'Onofrio's death and Ms. Simmons wounding and cannot be picked apart. Any prejudice is, therefore, outweighed by their probative value (see, e.g., U.S. v Carboni, 204 F.3d 39; U.S. v Gonzalez, 110 F.3d 936).

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

____________________________

Matthew J. D'Emic [*3]

J.S.C.