People v Winkfield
2012 NY Slip Op 06393 [98 AD3d 923]
September 27, 2012
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, October 24, 2012


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
CurryWinkfield, Appellant.

[*1]Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Harold V. Ferguson, Jr. of counsel),for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jared Wolkowitz of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), rendered June 15,2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felonyoffender, to an aggregate term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is nobasis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility. Theshooting incident was witnessed by two auxiliary police officers, whose testimony was supportedby ballistics evidence linking the gun recovered from the car they saw defendant leave the scenein to shell casings recovered from the scene of the shooting.

The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting defendant's former girlfriend totestify that, in the months before the shooting, she repeatedly saw defendant in possession of apistol resembling the one used in the incident. This testimony was relevant to establish identitysince it tended to show that defendant had the means of committing the crime (see e.g. Peoplev Del Vermo, 192 NY 470, 478-482 [1908]; People v Hall, 266 AD2d 160 [1st Dept1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 901 [2000]). "Contrary to defendant's argument, a pattern ofcrimes employing a unique modus operandi is not the exclusive situation in which unchargedcrimes may be probative of identity" (People v Laverpool, 267 AD2d 93, 94 [1st Dept1999], lv denied 94 [*2]NY2d 904 [2000]). The probativevalue of this evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect, which the court minimized by way ofthorough instructions. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.