People v. Datsun

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Datsun

149 A.D.2d 430, 542 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4439

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

DecidedApril 3, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 430 (People v. Datsun) 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. Datsun, 149 A.D.2d 430, 542 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), rendered March 31, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In ruling on the defendant’s motion to preclude the prosecutor from cross-examining him as to prior convictions, the trial court should have undertaken a more careful balancing of the prejudicial effect of evidence of prior convictions against their probative value after hearing counsel’s arguments (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). However, the ruling did not amount to a failure to exercise discretion or to an improvident exercise of discretion that would warrant reversal (cf., People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236, 239).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Lawrence and Kunzeman, 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 (Miller, J.), rendered March 31, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In ruling on the defendant’s motion to preclude the prosecutor from cross-examining him as to prior convictions, the trial court should have undertaken a more careful balancing of the prejudicial effect of evidence of prior convictions against their probative value after hearing counsel’s arguments (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). However, the ruling did not amount to a failure to exercise discretion or to an improvident exercise of discretion that would warrant reversal (cf., People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236, 239).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 430, 542 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-datsun-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack