People v. Dowdell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dowdell

264 A.D.2d 398, 695 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8485

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

DecidedAugust 2, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 398 (People v. Dowdell) 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. Dowdell, 264 A.D.2d 398, 695 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered June 21, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

As the People correctly concede on appeal, it was error for the trial court to admit evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction for the possession of cocaine. Such evidence did not refute the defendant’s claim that he had been framed by the police, but merely tended to show his criminal propensity (see, People v Crandall, 67 NY2d 111; see also, People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 54-56; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241-242). Similarly, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that it was error to [399]*399admit evidence that the defendant possessed a crack pipe, an uncharged crime (see, People v Blair, 90 NY2d 1003). As these errors were not harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230), we reverse and grant the defendant a new trial.

In view of our determination that there must be a new trial, we do not reach the remaining issues raised by the defendant. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered June 21, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

As the People correctly concede on appeal, it was error for the trial court to admit evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction for the possession of cocaine. Such evidence did not refute the defendant’s claim that he had been framed by the police, but merely tended to show his criminal propensity (see, People v Crandall, 67 NY2d 111; see also, People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 54-56; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241-242). Similarly, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that it was error to [399]*399admit evidence that the defendant possessed a crack pipe, an uncharged crime (see, People v Blair, 90 NY2d 1003). As these errors were not harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230), we reverse and grant the defendant a new trial.

In view of our determination that there must be a new trial, we do not reach the remaining issues raised by the defendant. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 398, 695 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dowdell-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack