Opinion
October 20, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of two witnesses regarding his habitual drug use ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the claim is without merit. Although, in general, evidence of uncharged crimes is not admissible, the testimony regarding the defendant's prior drug use was admissible as it was relevant on the issue of his motive in committing the offenses charged and was inextricably interwoven with the crime ( see, People v. Pugh, 236 A.D.2d 810; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242; People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 359; People v. Jones, 221 A.D.2d 661; People v. Goodman, 167 A.D.2d 352, 353; People v. Johnson, 155 A.D.2d 924, 925; see also, People v. Crandall, 67 N.Y.2d 111; People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364; People v. Seaberry, 138 A.D.2d 422, 423). Additionally, the evidence was admissible to complete the narrative of events regarding the commission of the offense ( see, People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932; see also, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v. DeLeon, 177 A.D.2d 641).
The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the People had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a statement he gave to the police had in fact been made by him ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Coleman, 199 A.D.2d 330, 331). In any event, this contention is without merit ( see, People v. Lopez, 187 A.D.2d 383; cf., People v. Cefaro, 23 N.Y.2d 283; People v. Miner, 213 A.D.2d 429).
The defendant's sentence is neither harsh nor excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.