Case Title: People v Small

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2009-02-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
People v Small


2009 NY Slip Op 01066 [12 NY3d 732]


February 12, 2009


Court of Appeals


Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.


As corrected through Wednesday, April 22, 2009



[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,vAndrew C. Small, Appellant.Argued January 14, 2009; decided February 12, 2009



People v Small, 48 AD3d 1110, affirmed.



APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL



Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (William Clauss of counsel), for appellant.
Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Wendy Evans Lehmann and Kelly Christine Wolford of counsel), for respondent.

{**12 NY3d at 732} OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.{**12 NY3d at 733}
While a defendant is not entitled as a matter of law to pretrial notice of the People's intention to offer evidence pursuant to People v Molineux (168 NY 264 [1901]) or to a [*2]pretrial hearing on the admissibility of such evidence (see generally People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 362 [1981]; People v Torres, 300 AD2d 46, 46-47 [1st Dept 2002]; cf. CPL 240.43), we outlined in People v Ventimiglia a procedure to be followed in order to avoid unfairness to the defendant. We noted that a prosecutor seeking to introduce Molineux evidence "should ask for a ruling out of the presence of the jury" (Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d at 362), and that any hearing with respect to the admissibility of such evidence should occur either before trial or, at the latest, "just before the witness testifies" (id.). Contrary to defendant's contention, there is no requirement that such inquiry or ruling occur before trial commences.
Here, County Court granted the People's application to allow the Molineux evidence midtrial in response to defendant's attempt to establish an agency defense. Moreover, the court provided a proper limiting instruction, telling the jury that the evidence was "no proof whatsoever that [defendant] possessed a propensity or disposition to commit the crime charged in the indictment" but was offered "solely for rebutting the defense of agency on the issue of intent." In these circumstances, County Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the People to present Molineux evidence.
Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur; Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.