People v. Cruz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cruz

304 A.D.2d 418, 757 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4190

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

DecidedApril 17, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 418 (People v. Cruz) 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. Cruz, 304 A.D.2d 418, 757 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered December 7, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). Defendant’s prior convictions were highly probative with regard to his credibility, and the court minimized any prejudice by directing that defendant’s prior first-degree robbery conviction be elicited only as an unspecified felony.

The prosecutor was properly permitted to inquire into defendant’s parole status and a prior theft allegation against him, since defendant opened the door to such questioning (see People v Mendez, 221 AD2d 162 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 923 [1996]; People v Cain, 207 AD2d 720 [1994] , lv denied 84 NY2d 933 [1994]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Mar-low and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered December 7, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). Defendant’s prior convictions were highly probative with regard to his credibility, and the court minimized any prejudice by directing that defendant’s prior first-degree robbery conviction be elicited only as an unspecified felony.

The prosecutor was properly permitted to inquire into defendant’s parole status and a prior theft allegation against him, since defendant opened the door to such questioning (see People v Mendez, 221 AD2d 162 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 923 [1996]; People v Cain, 207 AD2d 720 [1994] , lv denied 84 NY2d 933 [1994]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Mar-low and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 418, 757 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cruz-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack