Opinion
March 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On October 28, 1991, the defendant was arrested in an undercover "buy and bust" narcotics operation. An undercover officer purchased two vials of crack cocaine from the defendant, paying him $10 in pre-recorded money. The defendant was arrested by a field team, and the officers recovered the pre-recorded money and seven additional vials of crack cocaine.
The trial court correctly ruled that if the defendant chose to testify, admitted to possessing the seven vials, but denied intending to sell them, the People could then inquire into his prior narcotics convictions.
Evidence of prior criminal acts to prove intent is often unnecessary, and therefore should be precluded even though marginally relevant, where intent may be easily inferred from the commission of the act itself (People v. Jackson, 193 A.D.2d 621). However, evidence of prior illegal narcotic sales is admissible as rebuttal evidence against a criminal defendant who has been charged with intent to sell illegal narcotics, admits possession, but denies that he intended to sell those drugs (People v Hernandez, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245).
The background testimony of the police officers which explained the nature of a "buy and bust" operation and the roles of the officers in that operation assisted the jury in understanding the actions of the police which led to the defendant's arrest and the use of pre-recorded money in these operations. Accordingly, the admission of that testimony was proper (see, People v. Kane, 207 A.D.2d 846).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Rivera, 73 N.Y.2d 941; People v. Thomas, 200 A.D.2d 642). Sullivan, J.P., Copertino, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.