People v. Fernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fernandez

229 A.D.2d 447, 644 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7646

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 229 A.D.2d 447 (People v. Fernandez) 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. Fernandez, 229 A.D.2d 447, 644 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), rendered March 1, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ordering that the jury be sequestered, notwithstanding the defendant’s waiver of sequestration (see, CPL 310.10). ”[T]he requirement that a deliberating jury be sequestered is entirely statutory and reflects no established common-law right of the defendant” (People v Webb, 78 NY2d 335, 339-340).

Further, we find no error in the trial court’s Sandoval ruling that the prosecution could cross-examine the defendant as to the underlying facts of two prior robbery convictions (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). Evidence of a defendant’s prior conviction for a larcenous crime such as robbery is highly probative of his credibility because it bears upon his willingness to place his own interests above those of society (see, People v Bennette, 56 NY2d 142, 146-148; People v Foncette, 197 AD2d 533; People v Ellis, 162 AD2d 611).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal of the judgment of conviction. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Hart, 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, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), rendered March 1, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ordering that the jury be sequestered, notwithstanding the defendant’s waiver of sequestration (see, CPL 310.10). ”[T]he requirement that a deliberating jury be sequestered is entirely statutory and reflects no established common-law right of the defendant” (People v Webb, 78 NY2d 335, 339-340).

Further, we find no error in the trial court’s Sandoval ruling that the prosecution could cross-examine the defendant as to the underlying facts of two prior robbery convictions (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). Evidence of a defendant’s prior conviction for a larcenous crime such as robbery is highly probative of his credibility because it bears upon his willingness to place his own interests above those of society (see, People v Bennette, 56 NY2d 142, 146-148; People v Foncette, 197 AD2d 533; People v Ellis, 162 AD2d 611).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal of the judgment of conviction. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 447, 644 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fernandez-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack