People v. Burwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burwell

182 A.D.2d 769, 586 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6221

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

DecidedApril 20, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 769 (People v. Burwell) 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. Burwell, 182 A.D.2d 769, 586 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered September 5, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although we agree that it was error for the court to allow the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant about prior bad [770]*770acts which had not been raised during the Sandoval hearing (see, People v Durham, 154 AD2d 615), the error was, nevertheless, harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

The defendant’s remaining contention, that the trial court gave an improper supplemental instruction on what constitutes a "place of business” (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]), is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (CPL 470.15 [6]). Mangano, P. J., Miller, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered September 5, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although we agree that it was error for the court to allow the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant about prior bad [770]*770acts which had not been raised during the Sandoval hearing (see, People v Durham, 154 AD2d 615), the error was, nevertheless, harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

The defendant’s remaining contention, that the trial court gave an improper supplemental instruction on what constitutes a "place of business” (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]), is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (CPL 470.15 [6]). Mangano, P. J., Miller, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 769, 586 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burwell-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack