People v Graham
2014 NY Slip Op 03417 [117 AD3d 1584]
May 9, 2014
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 2, 2014


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vOrado N. Graham, Appellant.

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Janet C. Somes of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Amanda L. Dreher of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.),rendered November 6, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possessionof a controlled substance in the third degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia inthe second degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a juryverdict of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree(Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Courtproperly admitted uncharged crimes as Molineux evidence on the People's directcase because that evidence was relevant with respect to defendant's intent to sell thecontrolled substance in his possession (see § 220.16 [1]), and weconclude that its probative value outweighed any prejudice (see People v Ray, 63 AD3d1705, 1706 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 838 [2009]; People v Carson, 4 AD3d805, 806 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 797 [2004]). Furthermore, the court gavea limiting instruction that minimized any prejudicial effect (see People v Rogers, 103AD3d 1150, 1153 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 946 [2013]). Even assuming,arguendo, that the court erred in admitting such evidence, we conclude that the error isharmless. The evidence of defendant's guilt is overwhelming, and there is no significantprobability that defendant would have been acquitted but for the error (see People v Laws, 27 AD3d1116, 1117 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 758 [2006]; see generally People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Fahey,Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, 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.