People v. Mannino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mannino

11 A.D.3d 485, 782 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11538

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 485 (People v. Mannino) 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. Mannino, 11 A.D.3d 485, 782 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered March 30, 2001, [486]*486convicting him of murder in the second degree (three counts), burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, arson in the third degree, and conspiracy in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly allowed testimony that the defendant and his accomplices had participated in an attempted robbery before committing the subject crimes. This evidence was introduced to show the defendant’s motive and to complete the narrative of the events regarding the commission of the subject crimes (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241-242 [1987]; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]; People v Webb, 1 AD3d 542 [2003]; People v Howard, 285 AD2d 560 [2001]; People v James, 262 AD2d 500 [1999]). Moreover, the probative value of such evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice to the defendant (see People v Lewis, 69 NY2d 321, 325 [1987]; see also People v Alvino, supra at 242; People v Ventimiglia, supra at 359-360).

The issues raised in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Adams and Spolzino, 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, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered March 30, 2001, [486]*486convicting him of murder in the second degree (three counts), burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, arson in the third degree, and conspiracy in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly allowed testimony that the defendant and his accomplices had participated in an attempted robbery before committing the subject crimes. This evidence was introduced to show the defendant’s motive and to complete the narrative of the events regarding the commission of the subject crimes (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241-242 [1987]; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]; People v Webb, 1 AD3d 542 [2003]; People v Howard, 285 AD2d 560 [2001]; People v James, 262 AD2d 500 [1999]). Moreover, the probative value of such evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice to the defendant (see People v Lewis, 69 NY2d 321, 325 [1987]; see also People v Alvino, supra at 242; People v Ventimiglia, supra at 359-360).

The issues raised in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Adams and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 485, 782 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mannino-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack