People v. Hierro

122 A.D.3d 420, 994 N.Y.S.2d 614
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 6, 2014
Docket13420 184/12
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 420 (People v. Hierro) 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. Hierro, 122 A.D.3d 420, 994 N.Y.S.2d 614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered October 15, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that the evidence supporting the attempted first-degree assault convictions was legally insufficient to establish the element of intent to cause serious physical injury, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the *421 merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence supports reasonable inferences that defendant slashed the victim’s face with an unidentified sharp object, and that he did so with intent to cause the victim serious physical injury (see e.g. People v Jones, 110 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2013]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant’s gang affiliation, since it was highly probative of defendant’s motive, and “was central to the jury’s understanding of an otherwise unexplained assault” (People v Wilson, 14 AD3d 463, 463 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 857 [2005]). Testimony from the victim and from a police officer demonstrated why members of defendant’s gang would be motivated to target this victim. Furthermore, the court’s limiting instructions minimized any prejudicial effect.

Concur— Sweeny, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Baptiste
204 A.D.3d 825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Angulo
159 N.Y.S.3d 427 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Bailey
2017 NY Slip Op 1990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Vasquez
134 A.D.3d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 A.D.3d 420, 994 N.Y.S.2d 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hierro-nyappdiv-2014.