People v. Siu Wah Tse
| Decision Date | 01 February 1983 |
| Citation | 91 A.D.2d 350,458 N.Y.S.2d 589 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. SIU WAH TSE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel J. Gotlin, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Beth D. Jacob, Asst. Dist. Atty., New York City, of counsel (Norman Barclay, New York City, with her on brief; Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., New York City) for respondent.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and ROSS, SILVERMAN, BLOOM and KASSAL, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree, one count of attempted murder in the second degree, and one count of assault in the second degree. He was sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from fifteen years to life on each murder count, five to fifteen years on the attempted murder count and two to eight years on the assault count.
"The proof of the defendant's guilt was overwhelmingly established on the record herein" (People v. Mandrachio, 79 A.D.2d 278, 279, 436 N.Y.S.2d 642, aff'd. 55 N.Y.2d 906, 449 N.Y.S.2d 24, 433 N.E.2d 1272).
The record indicates that in 1979, in lower Manhattan, the dominant Chinese youth gang was the Ghost Shadows, which controlled the inner area of Chinatown, which included Mott Street. During this same period another active Chinese youth gang was the Black Eagles, which controlled the area north of Canal Street. The Ghost Shadows and the Black Eagles were rivals.
At about 4:00 A.M. on September 24, 1979 in the Wo Hop Restaurant, located at 15 Mott Street, the defendant, Frankie Mooi (Mooi) and Siew Ng (Ng), who were all members of the Ghost Shadows, surrounded Louis Mok (Mok), who was a former member of the Black Eagles. While standing next to a table occupied by Yuk Jack Tung (Tung) and Man Jooi Wang (Wang), Mooi, in the presence of the defendant and Ng, said to Mok: "you ... have ... nerve to come to this part of Chinatown." Immediately thereafter, in a hail of gunfire Mok fled the restaurant. One bullet struck the restaurant's cook, Chung Fan (Fan), in the upper right arm and other bullets fatally wounded Tung and Wang.
Mooi and Ng continued shooting at Mok as he ran across the streets of Chinatown.
Suddenly, at the corner of Mulberry and Park Streets Mok came face to face with defendant, and the defendant said: Then defendant dropped into a firing crouch and pointed what appeared to be a gun at Mok and pulled the trigger. Mok heard several clicks that sounded like the gun was empty or had misfired. Thereupon Mok and defendant struggled with each other until Mok escaped.
Despite the People presenting the testimony of numerous witnesses, including that of the wounded Fan, concerning the incident in issue, it is undisputed that Mok supplied the critical testimony upon which the People relied to convict defendant of these crimes. In evaluating Mok's testimony, the jury had before them, among other facts, that he had twice been convicted of extortion; that he had used heroin and cocaine; that he had made a number of inconsistent statements in his testimony; and, that he had made a deal with the People by which he was to receive substantially lighter sentences on several pending cases against him, in exchange for his truthful testimony herein. In spite of these adverse factors in Mok's background, the jury by returning a verdict against defendant, obviously found Mok's testimony credible.
A unanimous Court of Appeals said in People v. Carter, 37 N.Y.2d 234, 239, 371 N.Y.S.2d 905, 333 N.E.2d 177:
This Court said in People v. Samuels, 68 A.D.2d 663, 666, 418 N.Y.S.2d 607, aff'd 50 N.Y.2d 1035, 431 N.Y.S.2d 694, 409 N.E.2d 1368:
"Credibility is to be determined by the trier of the facts ..."
The dissent indicates that Mok "had a history of disreputable and criminal activities." We agree. But more importantly, Mok's background was fully presented to the jury for their consideration. When members of criminal gangs seek to assassinate each other, the prime witnesses, of necessity, will usually be the surviving gang members, if any.
Unlike the dissent, we do not view the admission of the expert testimony of Detective Neil Mouriello as reversible error.
Mouriello is a fifteen year veteran of the New York City Police Department, and he has spent the last eight years studying the operation of Chinatown gangs. He has become well informed about such things as the identity of the gangs, which gangs are active, who the individuals are that make up a particular gang, where in Chinatown particular gangs operate, and the attitude of particular gangs to intrusions into their territory by outsiders, including other gangs. His expertise on this subject has been recognized nationally and internationally. For instance, he has advised law enforcement agencies in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, D.C. and also in Canada.
Detailed information about Chinese youth gangs was "not common knowledge" (Doughterty v. Milliken, 163 N.Y. 527, 533, 57 N.E. 757).
This "jury ... (was) confronted with issues where ... (such) ... specialized knowledge ... (would) be helpful in arriving at an intelligent determination" (21 NY Jur., Evidence §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Benjamin R.
-
People v. Mosley
...are at issue, the jury in the first instance is responsible for such determinations, not an appellate court. (People v. Siu Wah Tse, 91 A.D.2d 350, 352, 458 N.Y.S.2d 589, lv. to app. den. 59 N.Y.2d 679, 450 N.E.2d 263). Here, a review of the record establishes that the jury was made aware t......
- People v. Pauli
- People v. Giuliano