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, etc., respondent, v. Jose FILIPE, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered May 6, 2002, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the admission of testimony regarding his and the complainant's membership in a gang, of which the defendant was the leader, is without merit. This evidence was relevant on the issue of the defendant's motive, and was necessary background to explain the relationship between the defendant and the complainant (see People v. Newby, 291 A.D.2d 460, 738 N.Y.S.2d 355). Since the probative value of this testimony outweighed any prejudice to the defendant, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting it (id.; see also People v. Carroll, 95 N.Y.2d 375, 385, 718 N.Y.S.2d 10, 740 N.E.2d 1084).
The defendant contends that the prosecutor's references to this testimony during summation constituted reversible error. The defendant failed to preserve this argument for appellate review, as he failed to object during the prosecutor's summation (see CPL 470.05[2]; see also People v. Williams, 305 A.D.2d 703, 759 N.Y.S.2d 684). In any event, the challenged remarks either were fair comment on the evidence, permissive rhetorical comment, or responsive to the defense counsel's summation (see People v. Hoover, 298 A.D.2d 599, 750 N.Y.S.2d 304; see also People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885; People v. Hines, 3 A.D.3d 580, 771 N.Y.S.2d 164).
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: May 03, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)