Opinion
November 13, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to cross-examine him regarding an uncharged robbery which he and one of the victims committed in Virginia several days before the murders in this case. The cross examination on this matter was appropriate given the defendant's direct testimony in which he stated that the killings were precipitated by a dispute between himself and one of the victims regarding the drugs and money that constituted the proceeds of that robbery. Moreover, the challenged questioning provided pertinent background information and was relevant to the issues of the defendant's motive and intent in killing the two victims (see, People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v Collins, 220 A.D.2d 610; People v Webb, 203 A.D.2d 606; People v Ebanks, 203 A.D.2d 199; People v McDowell, 191 A.D.2d 515). Additionally, the trial court provided the jury with appropriate limiting instructions regarding the defendant's uncharged crimes (see, People v Davis, 169 A.D.2d 774). Accordingly, given the circumstances of this case and the unusual procedural posture in which the issue arose, we find that the questioning was properly permitted in the sound exercise of the trial court's broad discretion (see generally, People v Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, cert denied 396 U.S. 846; People v Griffin, 131 A.D.2d 779). Moreover, the probative value of the uncharged robbery outweighed its prejudicial effect (see generally, People v Alvino, supra; People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350).
We discern no basis in the record for disturbing the consecutive sentences imposed by the court (see, People v Truesdell, 70 N.Y.2d 809; People v Sumpter, 203 A.D.2d 605; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Thompson, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.