From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Tosca

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 6, 2002
98 N.Y.2d 660 (N.Y. 2002)

Summary

allowing witness's prior statement as background to explain why the police stopped the defendant

Summary of this case from Dejesus v. Noeth

Opinion

96

Decided June 6, 2002.

APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 16, 2001, which modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, a judgment of the Supreme Court (Alexander Hunter, J.), renered in Bronx County upon a verdict convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 17 years to life. The modificaton consisted of reducing the sentence to a term of 12 years to life.

People v. Tosca, 287 A.D.2d 330, affirmed.

Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City (Melissa Rothstein and Richard M. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (David S. Weisel of counsel), for respondent.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, and Graffeo, concur.


OPINION OF THE COURT

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the police officers' testimony concerning an unidentified cab dirver's report of a recent encounter with the armed defendant. The testimony was admitted not for its truth, but to provide background information as to how and why the police pursued and confronted defendant ( see, People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835, 837). Further, the trial court twice explicitly instructed the jury on the limited use it could make of the testimony was not to be considered proof of the uncharged crime.

Finally, defendant was not unduly prejudiced by the prosecution's questionable remarks during summation, given the trial court's prompt curative instructions ( cf. People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 111).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Tosca

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 6, 2002
98 N.Y.2d 660 (N.Y. 2002)

allowing witness's prior statement as background to explain why the police stopped the defendant

Summary of this case from Dejesus v. Noeth

In People v Tosca (98 NY2d 660 [2002]) and People v Resek (3 NY3d 385 [2004]), we held that a trial court may, in its discretion, admit evidence of uncharged crimes to provide background information explaining the police actions to the jury if the probative value of the evidence outweighs the prejudice to the defendant, and the evidence is admitted with proper limiting instructions.

Summary of this case from People v. Morris

In People v. Tosca, 98 N.Y.2d 660, 746 N.Y.S.2d 276, 773 N.E.2d 1014 (2002) and People v. Resek, 3 N.Y.3d 385, 787 N.Y.S.2d 683, 821 N.E.2d 108 (2004), we held that a trial court may, in its discretion, admit evidence of uncharged crimes to provide background information explaining the police actions to the jury if the probative value of the evidence outweighs the prejudice to the defendant, and the evidence is admitted with proper limiting instructions.

Summary of this case from People v. Morris

In Tosca, we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting uncharged crime evidence as background information to explain the police actions (98 NY2d at 661, aff'g 287 AD2d 330 [2001]).

Summary of this case from People v. Morris
Case details for

People v. Tosca

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, RESPONDENT, v. EDWIN TOSCA, APPELLANT

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 6, 2002

Citations

98 N.Y.2d 660 (N.Y. 2002)
746 N.Y.S.2d 276
773 N.E.2d 1014

Citing Cases

People v. Silburn

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, he never asserted a desire to proceed pro se at trial, but only…

People v. Silburn

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, he never asserted a desire to proceed pro se at trial, but only…