From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Deleon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 1991
177 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 18, 1991

Appeal from the County Court, Rockland County (Cowhey, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In the early morning hours of August 9, 1986, the defendant forcibly entered into the home of Polly Molina, where his estranged wife was residing. The defendant immediately went to the bedroom where his wife was sleeping, and proceeded to slash her with a razor-knife, and to kick and beat her, causing her permanent physical disfigurement. Over the defense counsel's objection, the County Court held that evidence of the defendant's prior abusive behavior towards his wife in the months preceding the crimes charged was admissible at the trial.

Evidence of crimes not charged in the indictment is inadmissible if the crimes are introduced for the sole purpose of establishing criminal propensity (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241). The introduction of such evidence to establish motive is an exception to this general rule (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293; People v. Mees, 47 N.Y.2d 997, 998). Such evidence may also be introduced to complete a witness's narrative to assist the jury in its comprehension of the crime (see, People v. Mendez, 165 A.D.2d 751, 752). For these reasons, the evidence of the defendant's violence towards his estranged wife was admissible at the trial (see, People v. Liberatore, 167 A.D.2d 425, 426).

Moreover, we are satisfied that the defendant deliberately absented himself from the courtroom after the trial had begun, and thereby forfeited his right to be present (see, People v Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436). The court sufficiently warned the defendant that the trial would continue in his absence, and that he had a right to be present at his trial (see, People v Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 140; People v. Epps, 37 N.Y.2d 343, 349-350, cert denied 423 U.S. 999). It is clear that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to be present at his trial (see, People v. Parker, supra).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Deleon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 1991
177 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Deleon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIE DELEON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 18, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
576 N.Y.S.2d 344

Citing Cases

Rivalta v. Artuz

Accordingly, New York courts have traditionally held admissible "[e]vidence of crimes not charged [when]…

State v. Crossland

Considering the nature and scope of the inquiry, the defense counsel's presence was sufficient to safeguard…