| People v Aguilar |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09281 [79 AD3d 899] |
| December 14, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AdrianAguilar, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Howard B. Goodmanof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingram, J.),rendered July 29, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
"The admissibility of photographs, even if gruesome in nature, is a matter committed to the sounddiscretion of the trial court, if it tends 'to prove or disprove a disputed or material issue, to illustrate orelucidate other relevant evidence, or to corroborate or disprove some other evidence offered or to beoffered' " (People v Sampson, 67 AD3d1031, 1032 [2009], quoting People v Wood, 79 NY2d 958, 960 [1992] [internalquotation marks omitted]; see People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 369 [1973], cert denied416 US 905 [1974]). "[P]hotographic evidence 'should be excluded only if its sole purpose is toarouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant' " (People v Sampson, 67 AD3dat 1032, quoting People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d at 370). The photographs in this case were notoffered for the sole purpose of arousing the emotions of the jury. Therefore, the Supreme Courtprovidently exercised its discretion in admitting them into evidence (see People v Sampson, 67AD3d at 1032).
The defendant's challenge to the admission of expert testimony regarding the customs and practicesof Mexican-American gangs is without merit. The testimony was relevant to the issue of the defendant'smotive, and was necessary as background to explain to the jury the sequence of events (see People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977[2010]; People v Flores, 46 AD3d570, 571 [2007]; People v Cruz, 46AD3d 567, 568 [2007]).
The defendant's claims regarding the prosecutor's cross-examination of a police witness areunpreserved for appellate review because he failed to raise a specific objection that the prosecutor'squestions were beyond the bounds of the Supreme Court's evidentiary rulings (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Wright, 62 AD3d916, 917 [2009]; People v Gill, 54AD3d 965 [2008]; People v Thomas, 200 AD2d 642 [1994]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Sgroi,JJ., concur.