86 A.D.3d 147
N.Y. App. Div.2011Background
- Legislation passed after 9/11 created Anti-Terrorism Act and Penal Law § 490.25 defining crimes of terrorism with enhanced penalties.
- Morales, a St. James Boys gang member, was charged with three specified offenses as terrorism and conspiracy tied to a party fight in the Bronx.
- People alleged Morales acted to intimidate a civilian population—Mexican-Americans in the St. James Park area—through the charged offenses.
- Jury convicted Morales of three terrorism-specific offenses and conspiracy to commit a terrorism offense; convictions later remitted for resentencing on reduced counts.
- Evidence showed Morales planned and participated in a fight; his gunfire caused a bystander’s paralysis and a child’s death.
- Court held the evidence did not prove terrorism because Morales’ acts were not aimed at intimidating a broad civilian population but at rival gang members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'civilian population' can be a narrowly defined urban group. | People contend the neighborhood population fits 'civilian population' under 490.25(1). | Morales argues the statute targets mass, broad intimidation, not inter-gang violence in a small area. | Not terrorism; 'civilian population' requires broad pervasiveness beyond a gang-scene. |
| Whether the evidence shows intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. | People assert the SJB aimed to intimidate Mexican-Americans in the area. | Morales argues actions were to assert gang dominance over rivals, not to terrorize the civilian population at large. | Insufficient for terroristic intent; acts aimed at rivals, not the broader community. |
| Whether the convictions can stand as crimes of terrorism or must be reduced to lesser offenses. | People maintain terrorism convictions affirmed; underlying offenses remain valid as terrorism. | Morales contends terrorism convictions fail; reduce to ordinary crimes. | Convictions reduced to corresponding non-terrorism offenses; remanded for resentencing. |
| Whether admission of expert gang testimony and PowerPoint violated Crawford or the Confrontation Clause. | Shanahan testimony included extensive hearsay; Crawford violation occurred. | Defense waived Crawford objections and strategy relied on such evidence. | Waived; no reversal for Crawford violation. |
| Whether voir dire references to 9/11 tainted the defendant's trial and require reversal. | Court remarks could inflame jurors and prejudice jury. | Remark was improper but not prejudicial; case involved 6 years post-9/11. | Claim unpreserved; reviewed on merits and rejected as not affecting impartiality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 549 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2008) (donations to support attacks may intimidate a civilian population)
- United States v. Jordi, 418 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2005) (attempted bombing of clinics as terroristic act to intimidate civilian population)
- Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 384 F. Supp. 2d 571 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (distinguishes terroristic intent from ordinary street crime)
- Jenner v. State, 39 A.D.3d 1083 (3d Dep't 2007) (terroristic threat definition; ideological motive not required for conviction)
- Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928) (restatement of proximate cause and evidentiary sufficiency principles)