Opinion
2014-09-26
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Clifford C. ANDERSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua (John E. Tyo of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (James B. Ritts of Counsel), for Respondent.
Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua (John E. Tyo of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (James B. Ritts of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, and LINDLEY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [c] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly admitted uncharged crimes as Molineux evidence on the People's direct case because that evidence was relevant to defendant's intent to violate the order of protection and was admissible “ ‘to develop the necessary background and [to] complete the victim's narrative’ ” (People v. Erle, 83 A.D.3d 1442, 1444, 919 N.Y.S.2d 742, lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 794, 929 N.Y.S.2d 102, 952 N.E.2d 1097; see People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; People v. Ray, 63 A.D.3d 1705, 1706, 880 N.Y.S.2d 837, lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 838, 890 N.Y.S.2d 454, 918 N.E.2d 969). We further conclude that the probative value of such evidence outweighed any prejudice ( see People v. Carson, 4 A.D.3d 805, 806, 771 N.Y.S.2d 775, lv. denied2 N.Y.3d 797, 781 N.Y.S.2d 296, 814 N.E.2d 468; see also Ray, 63 A.D.3d at 1706, 880 N.Y.S.2d 837).
Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting such evidence, we conclude that the error is harmless. The evidence of defendant's guilt is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for the error ( see People v. Laws, 27 A.D.3d 1116, 1117, 812 N.Y.S.2d 200, lv. denied7 N.Y.3d 758, 819 N.Y.S.2d 883, 853 N.E.2d 254; see generally People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.