People v. Avila

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Avila

303 A.D.2d 165, 754 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1937

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 4, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 165 (People v. Avila) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Avila, 303 A.D.2d 165, 754 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, [166]*166Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), rendered June 12, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 and 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting expert testimony regarding gang customs and rituals. This testimony was explanatory of defendant’s actions and unusual statements at the time of the crime and was relevant to his motive (see People v Edwards, 295 AD2d 270 [2002]; People v Tai, 224 AD2d 328 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 942 [1996]). The court’s thorough instructions minimized any prejudicial effect. Defendant’s related argument concerning the People’s summation is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, [166]*166Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), rendered June 12, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 and 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting expert testimony regarding gang customs and rituals. This testimony was explanatory of defendant’s actions and unusual statements at the time of the crime and was relevant to his motive (see People v Edwards, 295 AD2d 270 [2002]; People v Tai, 224 AD2d 328 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 942 [1996]). The court’s thorough instructions minimized any prejudicial effect. Defendant’s related argument concerning the People’s summation is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 165, 754 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-avila-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack