Cisneros v. State

The defendant's association with a gang that conducted home invasions using a modus operandi that was markedly similar to the home invasion at issue did not constitute evidence that he participated in or otherwise aided, abetted, advised, encouraged, counseled, hired or procured that home invasion.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Gustavo Cisneros and eight others1 were indicted in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County for crimes arising out of a series of home invasions. Cisneros was tried separately in 2008 on the 24-count indictment, and the jury found him guilty of eight counts of burglary Counts 1, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 22,2 six counts of armed robbery Counts 2, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16,3 two counts of criminal attempt to commit armed robbery Counts 19 and 23,4 two counts of aggravated sexual battery Counts 3 and 4,5 and one count of sexual battery Count 14.6 The jury found him not guilty on the remaining five counts. On appeal, Cisneros claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions on Counts 1 through 10, 14, 18, and 19. He also contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. For reasons that follow we conclude that the evidence was insufficient as to Counts 1 through 6, 18, and 19, and we reverse Cisneros’s convictions as to those counts. The remainder of Cisneros’s convictions are affirmed

Viewed in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,7 the evidence shows that from February to April 2004, several Gwinnett County homes were invaded by masked gunmen who tied up their victims and stole money, jewelry, and other property. In chronological order, and by reference to the street on which they occurred and the corresponding counts of the indictment for which Cisneros was convicted, the home invasions at issue are as follows:

Cisneros v. State

The defendant's association with a gang that conducted home invasions using a modus operandi that was markedly similar to the home invasion at issue did not constitute evidence that he participated in or otherwise aided, abetted, advised, encouraged, counseled, hired or procured that home invasion.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report