| People v Ramadhan |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03082 [50 AD3d 339] |
| April 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v George Ramadhan, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Jung Park of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered June 3, 2004,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to aterm of eight years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, tothe extent of reducing the sentence to a term of four years, and otherwise affirmed.
The court properly responded to a note from the deliberating jury by defining the crime ofcoercion and informing the jury that if defendant entered the premises in question with intent tocommit that crime, this would satisfy the element of intent to commit a crime undersecond-degree burglary. The People did not limit their theory of the case to any particularintended crime (compare People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375, 379 n 3 [1980]). The fact that,in summation, the prosecutor suggested assault and unlawful imprisonment as possible intendedcrimes did not constitute a limitation on the theory of prosecution (see People v Bess,107 AD2d 844, 846 [1985]). Furthermore, the supplemental charge was fully consistent with thetrial evidence.
The court properly permitted the People to introduce evidence of threats received during trialby two of the witnesses, since there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to connect thethreatening conduct to defendant and to warrant an inference as to his consciousness of guilt(see People v Bonnemere, 308 AD2d 418 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 568 [2003]).The court provided [*2]an extensive limiting instruction, whichthe jury is presumed to have followed.
We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Lippman, P.J.,Friedman, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.