| People v Bailey |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 01990 [148 AD3d 547] |
| March 21, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Princesam Bailey, Appellant. |
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight ofcounsel), and Fried, Frank, Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York (Joseph V. Micali ofcounsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Rebecca Hausner of counsel), forrespondent.
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'smembership 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 thatthe extent of this evidence was excessive. However, the level of detail permitted by the court washighly probative of defendant's motive and "was central to the jury's understanding" of therelationship among defendant and his two codefendants and his participation in "an otherwiseunexplained assault" (see People vHierro, 122 AD3d 420, 421 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1165 [2015]; People v Cain, 16 AD3d 288 [1stDept 2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 884 [2005]). Simply informing the jury, as defendantsuggests, that the participants in the crime were fellow gang members would not have sufficed topermit the jury to fully understand defendant's conduct. The court's thorough instructionsminimized any prejudicial effect.
Defendant's claim regarding an incident involving a juror is similar to an argumentunsuccessfully raised on a codefendant's appeal (People v Wiggins, 132 AD3d 514 [1st Dept 2015], lvdenied 27 NY3d 1076 [2016]). We find no reason to revisit the determinations made on thatappeal, with regard to both preservation and the merits. The fact that the juror's outburst wasdirected at counsel for this particular defendant does not warrant a different result.Concur—Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.