People v. Carrasquillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carrasquillo

10 A.D.3d 424, 780 N.Y.S.2d 781, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10313

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

DecidedAugust 16, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 424 (People v. Carrasquillo) 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. Carrasquillo, 10 A.D.3d 424, 780 N.Y.S.2d 781, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered April 15, 2002, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence testimony about prior bad acts committed by him with the victim. We disagree. The testimony was relevant to the defendant’s motive and intent when he struck the victim three times with a baseball bat, and the probative value of this evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice. Thus, it was admissible (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241 [1987]). Also, the testimony consti[425]*425tuted permissible hearsay as it was not admitted for its truth, but rather to show motive (see People v Sawyer, 288 AD2d 73 [2001]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Luciano, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered April 15, 2002, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence testimony about prior bad acts committed by him with the victim. We disagree. The testimony was relevant to the defendant’s motive and intent when he struck the victim three times with a baseball bat, and the probative value of this evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice. Thus, it was admissible (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241 [1987]). Also, the testimony consti[425]*425tuted permissible hearsay as it was not admitted for its truth, but rather to show motive (see People v Sawyer, 288 AD2d 73 [2001]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Luciano, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 424, 780 N.Y.S.2d 781, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carrasquillo-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack