People v. Gonzales-Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gonzales-Martinez

136 A.D.3d 651, 23 N.Y.S.3d 907

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2016

Docket2013-05713

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 651 (People v. Gonzales-Martinez) 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. Gonzales-Martinez, 136 A.D.3d 651, 23 N.Y.S.3d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), rendered May 22, 2013, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, gang assault in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s arguments regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence are mostly unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Rodriguez, 127 AD3d 997 [2015]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record here, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

*652 Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting testimony relating to the defendant’s alleged membership in a gang, since the probative value of that testimony outweighed any prejudice to the defendant (see People v Borrero, 79 AD3d 767 [2010]; People v Jordan, 74 AD3d 986 [2010]). The testimony was relevant to the issue of the defendant’s motive, was inextricably interwoven into the narrative, and explained the relationships between the parties (see People v Jordan, 74 AD3d 986 [2010]). Moreover, the Supreme Court alleviated any prejudice to the defendant by providing appropriate limiting instructions (see People v Borrero, 79 AD3d 767 [2010]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Barros, 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, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), rendered May 22, 2013, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, gang assault in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s arguments regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence are mostly unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Rodriguez, 127 AD3d 997 [2015]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record here, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

*652 Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting testimony relating to the defendant’s alleged membership in a gang, since the probative value of that testimony outweighed any prejudice to the defendant (see People v Borrero, 79 AD3d 767 [2010]; People v Jordan, 74 AD3d 986 [2010]). The testimony was relevant to the issue of the defendant’s motive, was inextricably interwoven into the narrative, and explained the relationships between the parties (see People v Jordan, 74 AD3d 986 [2010]). Moreover, the Supreme Court alleviated any prejudice to the defendant by providing appropriate limiting instructions (see People v Borrero, 79 AD3d 767 [2010]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 651, 23 N.Y.S.3d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gonzales-martinez-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack