Opinion
November 26, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the court improperly admitted into evidence testimony of his prior drug use and of his theft of drugs since he was not charged with these crimes. However, under the circumstances of this case, this evidence was admissible to show motive (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 47; People v. Johnson, 155 A.D.2d 924, 925), and a common plan or scheme (see, People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364, 368). Also, it was necessary to complete the narrative of events (see, People v. Hardwick, 140 A.D.2d 624, 625). Furthermore, the probative value of this evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 359-360).
The defendant further argues that he was denied adequate notice since the bill of particulars did not include drugs as one of the things alleged to have been stolen. However, the theft of drugs was offered only to prove motive and thus did not have to be included in the bill of particulars (see, People v. Morris, 61 N.Y.2d 290, 295).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor did obtain a proper court ruling at a pretrial hearing before introducing evidence of uncharged crimes and thus the evidence was properly admitted (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 362, supra).
Finally, the defendant argues that the court improperly admitted into evidence photographs that aroused the emotions of the jurors and unduly prejudiced him. However, we find that these photographs had probative value and corroborated and illustrated trial testimony and thus were properly admitted (see, People v. Whitaker, 146 A.D.2d 723, 724). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.