People v. Gent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gent

158 A.D.2d 714, 551 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2311

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 158 A.D.2d 714 (People v. Gent) 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. Gent, 158 A.D.2d 714, 551 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In its Sandoval ruling (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), the trial court permitted inquiry into whether the defendant had ever been convicted of a felony and of petit larceny, but precluded cross-examination into two youthful offender adjudications. With regard to the felony, a burglary conviction, the court further ruled that inquiry into the underlying facts of the crime would not be permitted.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, we find no error in the court’s Sandoval compromise. The court, in a proper exercise of discretion, balanced the probative worth of permitting limited inquiry into the defendant’s criminal past against the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

No other issues have been raised on appeal. Hooper, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In its Sandoval ruling (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), the trial court permitted inquiry into whether the defendant had ever been convicted of a felony and of petit larceny, but precluded cross-examination into two youthful offender adjudications. With regard to the felony, a burglary conviction, the court further ruled that inquiry into the underlying facts of the crime would not be permitted.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, we find no error in the court’s Sandoval compromise. The court, in a proper exercise of discretion, balanced the probative worth of permitting limited inquiry into the defendant’s criminal past against the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

No other issues have been raised on appeal. Hooper, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 714, 551 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gent-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack