People v. Bonilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bonilla

251 A.D.2d 82, 674 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6532

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 9, 1998·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Iacovetta, J.), rendered December 6, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree and one count of rape in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life concurrent with a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly permitted the prosecution to elicit testimony that, in the past, defendant had slapped his girlfriend on many occasions and that about one month before [83] she was found dead, defendant had threatened to kill her. This testimony was probative of defendant’s motive and inextricably interwoven with evidence bearing upon defendant’s identity as the assailant (see, People v LaFrance, 182 AD2d 598, lv denied 80 NY2d 905; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233). The probative value of the testimony exceeded the potential for prejudice, and the court’s repeated and thorough instruction to the jury regarding the limited purpose of the testimony avoided any prejudicial effect. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Iacovetta, J.), rendered December 6, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree and one count of rape in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life concurrent with a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly permitted the prosecution to elicit testimony that, in the past, defendant had slapped his girlfriend on many occasions and that about one month before [83] she was found dead, defendant had threatened to kill her. This testimony was probative of defendant’s motive and inextricably interwoven with evidence bearing upon defendant’s identity as the assailant (see, People v LaFrance, 182 AD2d 598, lv denied 80 NY2d 905; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233). The probative value of the testimony exceeded the potential for prejudice, and the court’s repeated and thorough instruction to the jury regarding the limited purpose of the testimony avoided any prejudicial effect. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

People v. Bonilla, 251 A.D.2d 82, 674 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 82 (People v. Bonilla) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related