Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
People v. Morris
People v. Morris, 89 A.D.3d 1112 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2011)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 2011-11-29
- Topic
- litigation
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial because the trial court permitted the prosecution to introduce a recording of a telephone call to the 911 emergency number reporting that a person matching the defendant’s description committed an uncharged robbery. The challenged evidence was properly admitted to “provide background information as to how and why the police pursued and confronted [the] defendant” (People v Tosca, 98 NY2d 660, 661 [2002]; see People v Wilson, 82 AD3d 797, 799 [2011]; People v Givhan, 78 AD3d 730, 731 [2010]; People v Stevenson, 67 AD3d 605 [2009]; *1113People v Jenkins, 49 AD3d 780 [2008]), and the challenged evidence was more probative than prejudicial (cf. People v Resek, 3 NY3d 385, 389 [2004]). Moreover, the trial court nullified any potential prejudice by properly instructing the jury several times as to the limited purpose of this evidence (see People v Tosca, 98 NY2d at 661; People v Wilson, 82 AD3d at 799; People v Givhan, 78 AD3d at 731). Angiolillo, J.E, Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Morris. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial because the trial court permitted the prosecution to introduce a recording of a telephone call to the 911 emergency number reporting that a person matching the defendant’s description committed an uncharged robbery. The challenged evidence was properly admitted to “provide background information as to how and why the police pursued and confronted [the] defendant” (People v Tosca, 98 NY2d 660, 661 [2002]; see People v Wilson, 82 AD3d 797, 799 [2011]; People v Givhan, 78 AD3d 730, 731 [2010]; People v Stevenson, 67 AD3d 605 [2009];