People v. Boddie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Boddie

208 A.D.2d 464, 617 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10552

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 464 (People v. Boddie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Boddie, 208 A.D.2d 464, 617 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J.), rendered January 21, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted grand larceny in the third degree and sentencing him to a definite term of one year in jail, reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

While the arresting officer was properly permitted to testify to the details of pickpocketing strategies (People v Right, 180 AD2d 430, 431, lv denied 79 NY2d 952; People v Mason, 162 AD2d 144, lv denied 76 NY2d 860), it was error for him to be permitted to testify that in about 98% of the 150 previous pickpocket arrests he had been involved in the pickpockets worked in teams of from two to four people. "The introduction of evidence of the practices [pickpockets] have used on other occasions may not be used to prove defendant’s conduct on this particular occasion. The statistical evidence had nothing to do with this case and carried with it undue prejudice” (People v Kelsey, 194 AD2d 248, 253). Moreover, unlike People v Tevaha (204 AD2d 92, 93, affd 84 NY2d 879), where the background evidence was "brief and limited”, in the present case the initial error was exacerbated by permitting the prosecutor, in summation, to repeat the objectionable testimony. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J.), rendered January 21, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted grand larceny in the third degree and sentencing him to a definite term of one year in jail, reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

While the arresting officer was properly permitted to testify to the details of pickpocketing strategies (People v Right, 180 AD2d 430, 431, lv denied 79 NY2d 952; People v Mason, 162 AD2d 144, lv denied 76 NY2d 860), it was error for him to be permitted to testify that in about 98% of the 150 previous pickpocket arrests he had been involved in the pickpockets worked in teams of from two to four people. "The introduction of evidence of the practices [pickpockets] have used on other occasions may not be used to prove defendant’s conduct on this particular occasion. The statistical evidence had nothing to do with this case and carried with it undue prejudice” (People v Kelsey, 194 AD2d 248, 253). Moreover, unlike People v Tevaha (204 AD2d 92, 93, affd 84 NY2d 879), where the background evidence was "brief and limited”, in the present case the initial error was exacerbated by permitting the prosecutor, in summation, to repeat the objectionable testimony. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 464, 617 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-boddie-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack