Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County, rendered June 1, 1970, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminally selling a dangerous drug in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fifth degree. The indictment charged that the defendant sold two LSD tablets on October 2, 1969 at Oneonta, New York, to an undercover agent for the New York State Police. He was convicted of both counts of the indictment and was given a reformatory sentence on the first count of the indictment (selling a dangerous drug) and was given an unconditional discharge on the second count (possession of a dangerous drug). The issues on appeal are: (1) whether there was evidence received at trial that constituted prejudicial error; (2) whether the court abused its discretion in not furnishing the defendant with a copy of the probation report prior to sentencing; and (3) whether the sentence of the court was excessive under the circumstances of the case. On the trial, the undercover agent testified to another sale of LSD by appellant that immediately preceded the sale covered by the indictment. On redirect, he testified to a conversation in which appellant discussed plans of going to New York City to purchase a large quantity of hashish. While the general rule excludes testimony of other crimes the evidence may be admitted if the "mind plainly perceives that the commission of one tends, by visible connection, to prove the commission of the other by the prisoner" ( People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 309). It is clear that the first sale described in the testimony is relevant to establish the elements of knowledge and intent requisite to predicate the conviction in question. As to the second item of testimony, defense counsel introduced the matter, entitling the prosecution to pursue it on redirect examination (3 Wharton, Criminal Evidence [12th ed.], §§ 895, 896, 897). Furthermore, the evidence could have been elicited on direct examination under the Molineux rationale. Under recently decided cases in the Court of Appeals, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not furnishing appellant with a copy of the probation report prior to sentencing ( People v. Michael O., 22 N.Y.2d 831; People v. Peace, 18 N.Y.2d 230, cert. den. 385 U.S. 1032). Lastly, the sentence of the court was not excessive under the circumstances of the case. The trial court in passing sentence, stated that he was moved by the character of the drug involved, as well as certain indicia of appellant's lack of character principally evinced from the probation report. Judgment affirmed. Reynolds, J.P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur.