People v Avila
2010 NY Slip Op 00162 [69 AD3d 642]
January 5, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 10, 2010


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
JustinAvila, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Melissa S. Horlick of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Gary Fidel and Ayelet Sela ofcounsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.),dated September 21, 2006, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree(three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) that allowed inquiry into his prior conviction forassault involving a weapon was not an improvident exercise of discretion. The mere fact that thedefendant has committed a crime similar to the one for which he is currently being tried does notpreclude inquiry into the prior crime (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 208 [2002]; People v White, 60 AD3d 1095,1096 [2009]; People v Boseman, 161 AD2d 601, 602 [1990]).

The prosecutor's reason for exercising a peremptory challenge to exclude a potential jurorbased on his youth relative to the other jurors did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights(see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172[1996]). Age is not a cognizable protected category where the reason for the challenge wasrelated to the facts of the case (see People v Smalls, 249 AD2d 495 [1998]; People vMcMichael, 218 AD2d 671 [1995]; People v Manigo, 165 AD2d 660 [1990]).

The prosecutor's comments on summation either were made in response to the arguments ofdefense counsel which attacked the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, were fair commentson the evidence (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People vMcHarris, 297 AD2d 824 [2002]; People v Cariola, 276 AD2d 800 [2000]), or wereharmless in light of the court's curative instructions, which obviated any prejudice to thedefendant (see People v Ferguson, 82 NY2d 837 [1993]; People v Cabrera, 11 AD3d 552[2004]). Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.