Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raul DELVALLE, a/k/a Raul Devalle, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Moore, J.), rendered April 20, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree (2 counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, 25 years to life and 2 1/313 to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's guilt of the second-degree murder counts under a theory of depraved indifference was amply supported by the evidence, notwithstanding that the evidence would have also supported a finding of intentional murder (People v. Arce, 242 A.D.2d 508, 662 N.Y.S.2d 495). The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's credibility determinations.
The court properly determined that the prosecutor provided race-neutral nonpretextual explanations for the challenged peremptory strikes of venirepersons. The court's determinations on this subject entitled to great deference (People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356-357, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621, affd. 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395).
The court properly admitted, as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach a hearsay declarant's credibility, the rebuttal testimony of a prosecution witness who stated that he overheard the unavailable hearsay declarant implicating defendant in the murders. This statement directly contradicted the hearsay declarant's statement exonerating defendant, which defendant had placed in evidence as a declaration against penal interest. “[I]f there was never any opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, the inconsistent statement may be shown without a foundation” (Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-111 [Farrell 11th Ed.]; see also, Martorella v. Prudential Ins. Co., 238 App.Div. 532, 264 N.Y.S. 751).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 03, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)