Opinion
2014-10-8
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Eric CHARLES, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Patricia Pazner of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and William C. Hughes of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Patricia Pazner of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and William C. Hughes of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garnett, J.), rendered April 11, 2012, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal contempt in the first degree, criminal contempt in the second degree, and aggravated harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for assault in the second degree ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including that he caused “substantial pain” and therefore “physical injury” to the complainant by hitting her in the head with a metal wrench (Penal Law § 120.05[2]; Penal Law § 10.00[9]; see People v. Chiddick, 8 N.Y.3d 445, 447, 834 N.Y.S.2d 710, 866 N.E.2d 1039; People v. Soto, 184 A.D.2d 673, 674, 584 N.Y.S.2d 877; People v. Rivera, 183 A.D.2d 792, 793, 583 N.Y.S.2d 520). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on that count was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the Supreme Court's admission of certain evidence relating to his prior threats and abusive behavior toward the complainant is partially unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, the evidence at issue was admissible to establish the defendant's intent and motive, and was relevant as background information to explain to the jury the nature of the defendant's relationship with the complainant ( see People v. Sanchez, 73 A.D.3d 1093, 1094, 900 N.Y.S.2d 679; People v. Sanchez, 54 A.D.3d 638, 639, 864 N.Y.S.2d 17; People v. Laverpool, 52 A.D.3d 622, 860 N.Y.S.2d 565; People v. Melendez, 8 A.D.3d 680, 681, 778 N.Y.S.2d 894; People v. Howard, 285 A.D.2d 560, 560, 728 N.Y.S.2d 492; People v. Corrado, 256 A.D.2d 586, 682 N.Y.S.2d 879). Furthermore, the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, which the court minimized by way of limiting instructions.
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.