PEOPLE v. DUPERROY, 88 A.D.3d 606 (2011)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20111025451
Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 25, 2011
Latest Update: Oct. 25, 2011
Summary: The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting uncharged crimes evidence. This case involved longstanding and ongoing domestic conflict, and many of the counts submitted to the jury required proof that defendant intended to instill fear, harass, or otherwise inflict psychological injury on his wife. Defendant's extensive history of threatening and violent conduct was highly probative of intent and motive, and it provided valuable background information ( see People v Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d
Summary: The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting uncharged crimes evidence. This case involved longstanding and ongoing domestic conflict, and many of the counts submitted to the jury required proof that defendant intended to instill fear, harass, or otherwise inflict psychological injury on his wife. Defendant's extensive history of threatening and violent conduct was highly probative of intent and motive, and it provided valuable background information ( see People v Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 1..
More
The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting uncharged crimes evidence. This case involved longstanding and ongoing domestic conflict, and many of the counts submitted to the jury required proof that defendant intended to instill fear, harass, or otherwise inflict psychological injury on his wife. Defendant's extensive history of threatening and violent conduct was highly probative of intent and motive, and it provided valuable background information (see People v Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19 [2009]; People v Garvin, 37 A.D.3d 372 [2007], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 984 [2007]). The probative value of this evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, which was minimized by the court's thorough instructions. In any event, any error in receipt of this evidence was harmless.
The People concede that defendant is entitled to dismissal of the second-degree contempt counts as lesser included offenses of the first-degree counts. Defendant's remaining double jeopardy argument is unpreserved (see People v Gonzalez, 99 N.Y.2d 76, 82-83 [2002]; People v Jordan, 77 A.D.3d 406 [2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 953 [2010]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
Source: Leagle
