Majority
The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because the court permitted the prosecutor to introduce into evidence a Family Court petition wherein the victim alleged that the defendant, her husband, had assaulted her on numerous occasions, and an Order of Protection issued by the Family Court in connection therewith. The court admitted this evidence on the limited issues of the defendant’s motive and intent to commit the crimes with which he was charged. At trial, the defense was that the sole eyewitness to the
We find that the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).
We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Balletta, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Ingram 71 NY2d 474 p. 680
- People v. McKinney 24 NY2d 180 at 184 p. 680
- People v. Crimmins 36 NY2d 230 p. 680
- People v. Caviness 170 AD2d 615 p. 680
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 680