People v. Brumfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brumfield

236 A.D.2d 839, 654 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1771

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 839 (People v. Brumfield) 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. Brumfield, 236 A.D.2d 839, 654 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We conclude that defendant’s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We further conclude that County Court properly rejected defense counsel’s request to redact the portion of defendant’s statement that read, "I didn’t want to go back to jail because I had just got out.” That statement was admissible to show defendant’s motive and intent, and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect (see generally, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359; People v Moore, 42 NY2d 421, 428-429, cert denied 434 US 987; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264). We further conclude that the court’s Sandoval ruling that permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant concerning a prior robbery conviction was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v Laraby, 219 AD2d 817, lv denied 88 NY2d 849, 937; People v Cowell, 170 AD2d 343, lv denied 77 NY2d 993; People v Meli, 142 AD2d 938, 939, lv denied 72 NY2d 921).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—Aggravated Assault Upon Police Officer.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We conclude that defendant’s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We further conclude that County Court properly rejected defense counsel’s request to redact the portion of defendant’s statement that read, "I didn’t want to go back to jail because I had just got out.” That statement was admissible to show defendant’s motive and intent, and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect (see generally, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359; People v Moore, 42 NY2d 421, 428-429, cert denied 434 US 987; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264). We further conclude that the court’s Sandoval ruling that permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant concerning a prior robbery conviction was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v Laraby, 219 AD2d 817, lv denied 88 NY2d 849, 937; People v Cowell, 170 AD2d 343, lv denied 77 NY2d 993; People v Meli, 142 AD2d 938, 939, lv denied 72 NY2d 921).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—Aggravated Assault Upon Police Officer.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 839, 654 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brumfield-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack