| People v Wilson |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07306 [55 AD3d 1273] |
| October 3, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donnell L.Wilson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Leslie E. Swift of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Elma A. Bellini, J.), renderedSeptember 30, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminalcontempt in the first degree and harassment in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminalcontempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [v]) and harassment in the seconddegree (§ 240.26 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to precludethe People from presenting evidence of a prior incident of domestic violence by defendantagainst the complainant. We reject defendant's contention, inasmuch as that evidence wasrelevant to establish defendant's motive and intent (see People v Freece, 46 AD3d 1428 [2007], lv denied 10NY3d 811 [2008]; People v Melendez,8 AD3d 680 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 741 [2004]; People v Mathias, 7 AD3d 824,825-826 [2004]). We note in addition that the court properly allowed the People to presentevidence of defendant's prior violence only with respect to the complainant herein. Also contraryto the contention of defendant, evidence of his alleged drug use was admissible to complete thecomplainant's narrative (see generally People v Gines, 36 NY2d 932 [1975]). In anyevent, even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting the evidence of the priorincident of domestic violence and the evidence of defendant's alleged drug use, we conclude thatthe error is harmless (see People vGrant, 7 NY3d 421, 424 [2006]; see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d230, 241-242 [1975]). Finally, the court properly denied defendant's request to charge criminalcontempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50 [3]) as a lesser included offense ofcriminal contempt in the first degree because no reasonable view of the evidence "would supporta finding that [defendant] committed the lesser offense but not the greater" (People v Glover,57 NY2d 61, 63 [1982]; see People v Sullivan, 284 AD2d 917, 918 [2001], lvdenied 96 NY2d 942, 97 NY2d 658 [2001]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt,Martoche, Green and Gorski, JJ.