| People v Stevenson |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08691 [67 AD3d 605] |
| November 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Charles Stevenson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Andrew S. Holland of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), rendered July 11, 2007,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as asecond felony offender, to a term of 12½ years, unanimously affirmed.
Brief testimony that the police had been called to defendant's home on an unrelated "crime"and a description of the location as a "crime scene" were not uncharged crimes evidence (seePeople v Flores, 210 AD2d 1 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 1031 [1995]; People vPerez, 191 AD2d 285 [1993], mod on other grounds 83 NY2d 269 [1994]). Evidencethat a crime may have been committed in defendant's apartment did not necessarily imply that hecommitted it, or that he was even present at the time of the crime. In any event, this limitedtestimony was admissible as necessary background to complete the narrative of how the policefirst encountered defendant, realized he met the description of a robbery suspect, and recoveredproperty taken in the robbery (see People v Tosca, 98 NY2d 660 [2002]). The testimonyat issue was necessary to explain why the police were at defendant's home, while at the sametime preventing the jury from drawing unfair inferences that additional evidence was beingwithheld from it, or that the police were improperly present. We note that defendant's summationcontained assertions of a police frameup. Furthermore, the court's limiting instructions weresufficient to prevent any prejudice.
Defendant's arguments regarding the prosecutor's summation are unpreserved and we declineto review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal(see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998];People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884[1993]). While some of the prosecutor's comments were improper, they did not deprivedefendant of a fair trial, particularly in light of the court's instructions to the jury.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Nardelli,Catterson, DeGrasse and Roman, JJ.