Opinion
April 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the contention of the defendant, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting testimony regarding his prior threats against the deceased (see, People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233). The evidence was admissible to establish the defendant's motive as well as to complete the narrative of events (see, People v DeLeon, 177 A.D.2d 641; People v Shorey, 172 A.D.2d 634). Further, by offering a justification defense, the defendant opened the door to the admission of evidence of his intent (see, People v Barnes, 176 A.D.2d 337; People v Duntson, 159 A.D.2d 387; People v Stephens, 119 A.D.2d 777).
Nor was the defendant deprived of a fair trial by the manner in which the trial court marshalled the evidence (see, People v Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665; People v Williamson, 40 N.Y.2d 1073). The trial was short and uncomplicated. The trial court warned the jury that it had no opinion as to the facts of the case and repeatedly reminded the jury that it was their recollection of the facts that controlled. Further, the defense counsel adequately conveyed the defendant's theory of defense to the jury (see, People v Bacchus, 183 A.D.2d 720; People v Holton, 160 A.D.2d 729; People v McDonald, 144 A.D.2d 701).
Because of the severity of the crime, we do not find the defendant's sentence to be excessive (see, People v Alicea, 99 A.D.2d 815; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.