| People v Jenkins |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02617 [49 AD3d 780] |
| March 18, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Damien Jenkins, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Maria I. Wager, Richard LongworthHecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered November 13, 2001, convicting him of assault in the first degree, assaultin the second degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree (two counts), resisting arrest,and reckless driving, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court did not err in allowing the People to elicit testimony from police officersthat a warrant existed for the defendant's arrest for a serious felony and that the officers hadreason to believe he might be in possession of a weapon. This limited testimony, which did notdescribe the nature of the uncharged felony, and was coupled with proper limiting instructions,was necessary to provide background information establishing the basis for the officers' actions,and was more probative than prejudicial (see People v Tosca, 98 NY2d 660 [2002];People v Monzon, 289 AD2d 595 [2001]; People v Callegari, 236 AD2d 551[1997]; cf. People v Resek, 3 NY3d385 [2004]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), it was legally sufficient toestablish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant caused physical injury to a police officerwith the intent to prevent him from performing a lawful duty (see Penal Law §120.05 [3]; People v Coulanges, 264 AD2d 853 [1999]; People v McKenzie, 173AD2d 493 [1991]), and that the defendant caused serious physical injury to a bystander in thecourse of and in furtherance of the commission of a felony or immediate [*2]flight therefrom (see Penal Law § 120.10 [4]).Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event,is without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Carni, JJ., concur.