THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. TYRELL BLAIR, APPELLANT.
90 N.Y.2d 1003, 688 N.E.2d 503, 665 N.Y.S.2d 629 (1997).
October 30, 1997
1 No. 202
(97 NY Int. 0189)
Decided October 30, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
John R. Lewis, for appellant.
David S. Kwon, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should
be reversed, and a new trial ordered on the narcotics related charges.
At his jury trial for various drug related crimes, defendant
attempted to prove that the drugs found in his bedroom closet had been
planted there by an informant who had helped thepolice secure the
search warrant for his apartment. After the defense rested, the People
called a rebuttal witness who testified that approximately eight
months before execution of the search warrant, defendant had supplied
her with drugs, which he had retrieved from a back room in his
apartment. Defendant entered a timely objection to the admission of
this testimony, claiming that it had no probative value and was unduly
prejudicial. The trial court denied the defense objection and ruled
that the evidence was admissible because it was relevant to "the issue
of knowledge and weight."
Evidence of a prior uncharged crime may not be admitted solely to
demonstrate a defendant's bad character or criminal propensity, but
may be admissible if linked to a specific material issue or fact
relating to the crime charged, and if its probative value outweighs
its prejudicial impact ( People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 54 55; People v
Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241 242). Such evidence offered in rebuttal
must, additionally, counter "some affirmative fact" which defendant
attempted to prove ( People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, 345, quoting
Marshall v Davies, 78 NY 414, 420).
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. TYRELL BLAIR, APPELLANT.
The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, and a new
At his jury trial for various drug related crimes, defendant attempted to prove that the
After the defense rested, the People called a rebuttal witness who testified that
Defendant entered a timely objection to the admission of this testimony, claiming that it had
The trial court denied the defense objection and ruled that the evidence was admissible
Evidence of a prior uncharged crime may not be admitted solely to demonstrate a defendant's
Although evidence of prior uncharged crimes may have been relevant to show intent, knowledge
The People's rebuttal testimony concerning an alleged drug transaction eight months before
to show his propensity to sell drugs.
the prior uncharged crime evidence was inadmissible.
Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed and a new trial ordered on the narcotics possession
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and
|
