People v. Mena, 71 A.D.3d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
People v. Mena, 71 A.D.3d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Johnson (nyappdiv, 2026-05-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Johnson (4×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Defendant's history of anger and jealousy was relevant to his potential general motive to harm the victim and any intent to seriously injure him, and the significant probative value of this testimony outweighed the potential for prejudice to defendant ( see People v Mena , 71 AD3d 475, 476 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 753 [2010]; People v Mehmeti , 279 AD2d 420, 421 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 832 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Conroy
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Further, evidence of uncharged crimes committed by the defendant and his codefendants, and prior statements or acts of animosity or hostility, were properly admitted under the circumstances of this case, to complete the narrative of the events, provide background material, and as evidence of motive or state of mind with respect to the crimes charged (see People v Till, 87 NY2d 835, 837 [1995]; People v Morris, 89 AD3d 1112 , 1113 [2011], lv granted 19 NY3d 964 [2012]; People v Mena, 71 AD3d 475, 476 [2010]; People v Alas, 44 AD3d 534 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Conroy
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Further, evidence of uncharged crimes committed by the defendant and his codefendants, and prior statements or acts of animosity or hostility, were properly admitted under the circumstances of this case, to complete the narrative of the events, provide background material, and as evidence of motive or state of mind with respect to the crimes charged (see People v Till, 87 NY2d 835, 837 [1995]; People v Morris, 89 AD3d 1112 , 1113 [2011], lv granted 19 NY3d 964 [2012]; People v Mena, 71 AD3d 475, 476 [2010]; People v Alas, 44 AD3d 534 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Pedro Mena
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 11, 2010.
71 A.D.3d 475
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

[*476] Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), rendered June 9, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 221/2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. The victim’s reliable identification of defendant was extensively corroborated by physical evidence and police testimony.

The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the People to elicit defendant’s racially offensive statements to the police shortly after the shooting. We conclude that, in the context of the case, this evidence was more probative than prejudicial. Although defendant was not charged with hate crimes under Penal Law § 485.05, and motive was not an element to be proven, motive was nevertheless an important issue. While the prosecution contended that defendant shot the victim seven times in revenge for an insult, the defense argued that such an overreaction to trivial teasing was implausible. Accordingly, defendant’s racially charged comments tended to explain the overreaction by showing that defendant’s intense racism was a contributing factor. In addition, there was a relationship between the statements at issue and epithets used by the assailant during the crime that was sufficient to make the statements relevant to the issue of identity. Defendant’s remaining contentions concerning this evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., DeGrasse, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Motion seeking leave to file pro se supplemental brief denied.