People v. Childs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Childs

8 A.D.3d 116, 778 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8359

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

DecidedJune 15, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 116 (People v. Childs) 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. Childs, 8 A.D.3d 116, 778 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered January 28, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence concerning defendant’s outstanding Maryland warrant. Since police credibility was the central issue in the case, this background material was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading to defendant’s arrest and to explain the actions of the police (see People v Till, 87 NY2d 835 [1995]; see also People v Rojas, 97 NY2d 32 [2001]). The probative value of this [117]*117evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect, which was minimized by the court’s thorough limiting instructions. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered January 28, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence concerning defendant’s outstanding Maryland warrant. Since police credibility was the central issue in the case, this background material was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading to defendant’s arrest and to explain the actions of the police (see People v Till, 87 NY2d 835 [1995]; see also People v Rojas, 97 NY2d 32 [2001]). The probative value of this [117]*117evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect, which was minimized by the court’s thorough limiting instructions. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 116, 778 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-childs-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack