| People v Walters |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02992 [127 AD3d 889] |
| April 8, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Christopher Walters, Appellant. |
Judith E. Permutt, Eastchester, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Hae Jin Liu, RichardLongworth Hecht, Jennifer L. Spencer, and Laurie G. Sapakoff of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Cacace, J.), rendered April 5, 2012, convicting him of criminal contempt in the firstdegree (three counts), assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon inthe third degree, aggravated criminal contempt, and endangering the welfare of a child,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People toelicit evidence of the defendant's prior bad act involving the complainant (see Peoplev Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]). The evidence was properly admitted as relevantbackground material to enable the jury to understand the defendant's relationship with thecomplainant and to explain the issuance of an order of protection (see People v Marji, 43 AD3d961 [2007]).
In addition, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admittingexpert testimony regarding battered women's syndrome (see People v Carroll, 95NY2d 375, 387 [2000]; Peoplev Thompson, 119 AD3d 966 [2014]; People v Roblee, 83 AD3d 1126, 1128 [2011]; People v Smith, 9 AD3d745, 747 [2004]; People vGillard, 7 AD3d 540 [2004]). The court did not allow the expert to offer anopinion as to whether the conduct at issue constituted domestic violence or whether thecomplainant exhibited symptoms of battered women's syndrome. Instead, the expertdescribed the general behavior patterns of domestic violence perpetrators and victims inorder to explain behaviors of a battered woman that might be beyond the ken of theaverage juror (see People v Thompson, 119 AD3d at 966-967; People v Johnson, 22 AD3d600 [2005]).
The defendant's contentions regarding improper comments by the prosecutor onsummation and the People's failure to test certain physical evidence for DNA orfingerprints, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and wedecline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
[*2] The defendant's remaining contentions, including thecontention raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit. Dillon, J.P.,Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.