People v. Segarra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Segarra

7 A.D.3d 365, 775 N.Y.S.2d 854, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6752

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

DecidedMay 13, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 365 (People v. Segarra) 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. Segarra, 7 A.D.3d 365, 775 N.Y.S.2d 854, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John E.H. Stackhouse, J.), rendered January 15, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting testimony that, during the confrontation preceding the assault, the victim taunted defendant by saying “I know you like playing with guns. Are you going to play with guns today?” This testimony was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading up to the shooting (see People v Till, 87 NY2d 835 [366]*366[1995]), and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. In any event, were we to find that the evidence was improperly admitted, we would find the error to be harmless given the overwhelming evidence establishing that defendant intentionally shot the victim. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John E.H. Stackhouse, J.), rendered January 15, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting testimony that, during the confrontation preceding the assault, the victim taunted defendant by saying “I know you like playing with guns. Are you going to play with guns today?” This testimony was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading up to the shooting (see People v Till, 87 NY2d 835 [366]*366[1995]), and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. In any event, were we to find that the evidence was improperly admitted, we would find the error to be harmless given the overwhelming evidence establishing that defendant intentionally shot the victim. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 365, 775 N.Y.S.2d 854, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-segarra-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack