People v. Devaughn
| Decision Date | 31 May 2011 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Alex DEVAUGHN, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
84 A.D.3d 1394
925 N.Y.S.2d 114
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04696
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Alex DEVAUGHN, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 31, 2011.
[925 N.Y.S.2d 115]
Dale L. Smith, New York, N.Y., for appellant.Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
[84 A.D.3d 1394] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered September 9, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts) and robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
In the early morning hours of January 9, 2000, the defendant and his accomplice got out of a car at a store in Queens, and drew guns on two men wearing expensive chains. A gunshot went off, and the defendant grabbed the chain from one of the victims and ran away. The man who had driven the defendant and his accomplice to the store testified that the accomplice admitted shooting the robbery victim, who died from his injuries.
At trial, the court allowed the People to introduce testimony from two men with whom the defendant participated in a string of similar robberies in the month before the robbery at issue. They both testified that the defendant complained to them that they were unavailable to assist him during the January 9 robbery, and they further testified that the defendant
[925 N.Y.S.2d 116]
told them everything that had happened during the January 9 robbery. The Supreme Court also precluded defense counsel from asking the surviving robbery victim if the shooting could have been in retaliation for a drug-deal-related stabbing in which the robbery victims may have been involved.
The jury convicted the defendant of murder in the second degree (two counts) on a theory of felony murder, and robbery in the first degree (two counts). The defendant appeals.
[84 A.D.3d 1395] The Supreme Court's discretion in making evidentiary rulings “is circumscribed by the rules of evidence and the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense” ( People v. Carroll, 95 N.Y.2d 375, 385, 718 N.Y.S.2d 10, 740 N.E.2d 1084). Although evidence of other crimes is generally inadmissible, it can be admitted, inter alia, to establish motive or to complete a narrative ( see People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Harris
...98 N.Y.2d 660, 661, 746 N.Y.S.2d 276, 773 N.E.2d 1014;People v. Genyard, 84 A.D.3d 1398, 1400, 923 N.Y.S.2d 883;People v. Devaughn, 84 A.D.3d 1394, 1395, 925 N.Y.S.2d 114;People v. Jordan, 74 A.D.3d 986, 902 N.Y.S.2d 379). Although the defendant contends that evidence of the Gibson murder h......
-
People v. Jones
...committed several small business robberies in close temporal and physical proximity to the crime charged]; People v. Devaughn, 84 A.D.3d 1394, 1395, 925 N.Y.S.2d 114 [2d Dept 2011] [third-party culpability testimony was properly precluded by the trial court since the defendant's “line of qu......
-
Devaughn v. Graham, 14-CV-2322 (NGG)
...Wayne Wright, outside a store in Queens, New York, wearing "expensive chains," and approached them with guns drawn. People v. DeVaughn, 925 N.Y.S.2d 114, 115 (App. Div. 2011). The prosecution elicited testimony that during the incident, a gunshot went off and Petitioner proceeded to grab a ......
-
People v. Stewart, 2013–05582
...court's limiting instructions regarding this evidence were insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Devaughn , 84 A.D.3d 1394, 1395, 925 N.Y.S.2d 114 ; People v. Norman , 40 A.D.3d 1128, 1129–1130, 837 N.Y.S.2d 694 ), and, in any event, without merit. Furthermore, we ......