Opinion
May 28, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (John P. Collins, J.).
The bodies of the victims, Juan Nieto, a reputed drug dealer, and Jaqueline Martinez, his girlfriend, were discovered in the passenger compartment of a grey Plymouth in the vicinity of Bronx River Avenue and the Cross Bronx Expressway, at approximately 7:00 A.M. on October 19, 1987. Nieto's body was slumped over that of Martinez, which was in a seated position in the front passenger seat of the vehicle. Four photographs of the bodies were introduced at trial in order to illustrate the position of the bodies and the crime scene.
The evidence which connected the defendant to the homicides was the testimony of a witness, who stated at trial that he was privy to a conversation in the home of his brother-in-law, in which the defendant told him the details of the crime and his reason for killing the victims.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and giving due deference to the jury's finding with respect to credibility (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), it is clear that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The witness's criminal history was fully presented to the jury, and defendant can point to nothing in the record which warrants disturbing the jury's finding with respect to that testimony, which was supported by the other evidence submitted.
It was not error for the trial court to admit in evidence the photographs of the victims' bodies. Photographs of the victim's corpse which are likely to arouse the passions of the jury should not be admitted unless they tend to prove or disprove some material fact in issue. (People v Stevens, 76 N.Y.2d 833, 835.) In the present case the photographs were properly admitted to illustrate the positioning of the bodies in order to show that Lopez' account of what defendant said comported with the physical evidence. Their probative value outweighed any potential prejudice (cf., People v Bell, 63 N.Y.2d 796).
Evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible if the evidence tends to establish an element of the crime under consideration or is relevant because of a recognized exception to the general prohibition against the admission of such evidence. (People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241.) The testimony concerning the defendant's and his mother's prior involvement with the male victim's drug business, was admissible for the purposes of completing the narrative and of demonstrating the defendant's motive to commit the crime (People v Powell, 157 A.D.2d 524, 524-525, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 923; People v Conyers, 160 A.D.2d 318, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 786).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.