PEOPLE, res, v. PRINCESAM BAILEY, def-ap

3441. PEOPLE, res, v. PRINCESAM BAILEY, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel), and Fried, Frank, Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York (Joseph V. Micali of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Rebecca Hausner of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered July 30, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3441. PEOPLE, res, v. PRINCESAM BAILEY, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel), and Fried, Frank, Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York (Joseph V. Micali of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Rebecca Hausner of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered July 30, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant’s membership in the Bloods gang and testimony from an expert witness concerning the customs, hierarchies and violent practices of the Bloods. On appeal, defendant’s principal argument is that the extent of this evidence was excessive. However, the level of detail permitted by the court was highly probative of defendant’s motive and “was central to the jury’s understanding” of the relationship among defendant and his two codefendants and his participation in “an otherwise unexplained assault” (see People v. Hierro, 122 AD3d 420, 421 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1165 [2015]; People v. Cain, 16 AD3d 288 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 884 [2005]). Simply informing the jury, as defendant suggests, that the participants in the crime were fellow gang members would not have sufficed to permit the jury to fully understand defendant’s conduct. The court’s thorough instructions minimized any prejudicial effect.

PEOPLE, res, v. PRINCESAM BAILEY, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal