| People v Abdul-Aleem |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 08743 [133 AD3d 867] |
| November 25, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Yahya Abdul-Aleem, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Barry Stendig of counsel), for appellant, andappellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and William H. Branigan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Holder, J.), rendered April 30, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree,attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and reckless endangermentin the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In 2003, the defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in thefifth degree, for which he received a sentence of five years' probation. He was arrestedagain in February 2006 for drug-related activity and released, but failed to appear incourt on August 8, 2006. Two years later, the defendant was rearrested in West Virginia.He was then returned to New York to stand trial on charges in connection with themurder of Stanley Pierre-Paul, which occurred on August 6, 2006. On November 20,2008, the defendant pleaded guilty to bail jumping in the second degree.
The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and related charges. Onappeal, the defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial as a result of the SupremeCourt's Molineux/Sandoval ruling (see People v Molineux, 168NY 264 [1901]; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]). After a combinedMolineux/Sandoval hearing, the People were permitted to introduce evidenceshowing that on August 8, 2006, two days after the subject murder, the defendant failedto appear in court in connection with the then-pending 2003 and 2006 cases, the prisonterms he faced on each of those cases, and that he subsequently pleaded guilty to bailjumping. The People were also permitted to elicit evidence that while in West Virginia,on November 25, 2006, and June 14, 2008, the defendant used an alias.
A person's post-crime behavior is often relevant because the behavior provides cluesto the person's state of mind (seePeople v Jackson, 125 AD3d 1002 [2015]). Use of an alias is evidence ofconsciousness of guilt (see People v Miller, 123 AD2d 721 [1986]). Here,evidence that the defendant [*2]used an alias while inWest Virginia was properly introduced into evidence. However, evidence of prior badacts is not admissible unless such evidence is offered for some purpose other than toshow the defendant's bad character or to raise an inference that the defendant has acriminal propensity (see People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 46-47 [1979];People v Molineux, 168 NY at 291-294). Here, evidence that there were twocriminal cases pending against the defendant and that he pleaded guilty to bail jumpingwas improperly admitted. Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this case, the evidencewas not so prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair trial. Any potential for prejudicewas offset by the jury charge, which emphasized that uncharged crimes were not to beconsidered proof of propensity to commit the crimes charged (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d588, 598 [2013]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, areunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Balkin, J.P., Hall, Duffyand LaSalle, JJ., concur.