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. Jody PARRELLA, Defendant-Appellant.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Felix Piniero, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander Hunter, J.), rendered August 1, 2001, convicting defendant Jody Parrella, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed. Judgment, same court and Justice, rendered November 29, 2001, convicting defendant Felix Piniero, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdicts convicting defendant Parrella of assault and defendant Piniero of murder, each under a depraved indifference theory, were based on legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility and the resolution of conflicting expert testimony. The evidence warrants the conclusion that each defendant acted with the requisite depraved indifference to human life while recklessly creating a grave risk of death, where, after defendants struck the victim in the head and caused him to fall to the ground, they repeatedly and forcefully kicked him in the side of the head, whereupon Piniero stabbed the victim in the chest (see People v. Sanchez, 98 N.Y.2d 373, 748 N.Y.S.2d 312, 777 N.E.2d 204; People v. Jones, 211 A.D.2d 645, 620 N.Y.S.2d 487, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 863, 624 N.Y.S.2d 382, 648 N.E.2d 802).
The challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation, when taken in their proper context, generally constituted fair comment on the evidence made in response to defense attacks on the credibility of prosecution witnesses, and there was no pattern of egregious remarks warranting reversal (see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 666 N.Y.S.2d 572, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 976, 672 N.Y.S.2d 855, 695 N.E.2d 724; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, 591 N.Y.S.2d 1001, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 884, 597 N.Y.S.2d 945, 613 N.E.2d 977).
The court's instructions on accessorial liability conveyed the appropriate legal standards, including those relating to mental culpability, and the court was not obligated to charge the particular language requested by Parrella (see People v. Fields, 87 N.Y.2d 821, 637 N.Y.S.2d 355, 660 N.E.2d 1134; People v. Dory, 59 N.Y.2d 121, 129, 463 N.Y.S.2d 753, 450 N.E.2d 673).
We perceive no basis for reducing either of the sentences.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 10, 2004
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)