People v. Brennon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brennon

239 A.D.2d 428, 658 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5067

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

DecidedMay 12, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 428 (People v. Brennon) 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. Brennon, 239 A.D.2d 428, 658 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5067 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), rendered November 2, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion. The court properly determined that the probative value of evidence of prior convictions relating to the defendant’s placing his interests above those of society outweighed any prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). Further, there is no per se rule as to the number of prior convictions which may be ruled admissible (see, People v Gray, 84 NY2d 709).

The trial court properly ruled that the statements made by unidentified bystanders were not admissible as' excited utterances since there was no evidence that those declarants spoke with personal knowledge of the facts (see, People v McNeil, 163 AD2d 329; People v Wright, 157 AD2d 534; People v Rivers, 109 AD2d 758; People v Rhodes, 96 AD2d 565). Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), rendered November 2, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion. The court properly determined that the probative value of evidence of prior convictions relating to the defendant’s placing his interests above those of society outweighed any prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). Further, there is no per se rule as to the number of prior convictions which may be ruled admissible (see, People v Gray, 84 NY2d 709).

The trial court properly ruled that the statements made by unidentified bystanders were not admissible as' excited utterances since there was no evidence that those declarants spoke with personal knowledge of the facts (see, People v McNeil, 163 AD2d 329; People v Wright, 157 AD2d 534; People v Rivers, 109 AD2d 758; People v Rhodes, 96 AD2d 565). Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 428, 658 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brennon-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack