People v. Fong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fong

54 A.D.2d 638, 387 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14138

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 638 (People v. Fong) 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. Fong, 54 A.D.2d 638, 387 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, February 28, 1975, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance, third degree, and sentencing her to a minimum of one year and a maximum of life in prison, unanimously affirmed. The trial court’s refusal to render a decision on the defendant’s pretrial motion made pursuant to People v Sandoval (34 NY2d 371) until the defendant had taken the witness stand on the trial we find to be error. While Sandoval refrained from laying down "precise guidelines” (p 375), it, nonetheless, contemplated a "prospective” ruling, among other reasons, to enable a defendant to decide whether to take the stand (p 373). In this instance we find the error harmless. The conclusive evidence of the defendant’s guilt makes it unlikely that the jury would have rendered a more favorable verdict had she taken the stand. Neither does it appear that the court’s postponement of its decision, with the possibility that it would ultimately restrict cross-examination of the defendant, was a compelling factor in her decision not to testify. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Lane, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, February 28, 1975, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance, third degree, and sentencing her to a minimum of one year and a maximum of life in prison, unanimously affirmed. The trial court’s refusal to render a decision on the defendant’s pretrial motion made pursuant to People v Sandoval (34 NY2d 371) until the defendant had taken the witness stand on the trial we find to be error. While Sandoval refrained from laying down "precise guidelines” (p 375), it, nonetheless, contemplated a "prospective” ruling, among other reasons, to enable a defendant to decide whether to take the stand (p 373). In this instance we find the error harmless. The conclusive evidence of the defendant’s guilt makes it unlikely that the jury would have rendered a more favorable verdict had she taken the stand. Neither does it appear that the court’s postponement of its decision, with the possibility that it would ultimately restrict cross-examination of the defendant, was a compelling factor in her decision not to testify. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Lane, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 638, 387 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fong-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack