People v. Godin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Godin

50 A.D.2d 839, 377 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11702

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 839 (People v. Godin) 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. Godin, 50 A.D.2d 839, 377 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered April 7, 1975, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Upon proper facts, it is permissible to allow inquiry into a defendant’s prior convictions for menacing and harassment in order to impeach him should he choose to testify at his trial. Such inquiry may reflect upon a defendant’s willingness to place his own interests above society’s search for truth when he takes the witness stand (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). The charge to the jury, when read as a whole, correctly informed it as to the applicable law (see People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Christ, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered April 7, 1975, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Upon proper facts, it is permissible to allow inquiry into a defendant’s prior convictions for menacing and harassment in order to impeach him should he choose to testify at his trial. Such inquiry may reflect upon a defendant’s willingness to place his own interests above society’s search for truth when he takes the witness stand (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). The charge to the jury, when read as a whole, correctly informed it as to the applicable law (see People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Christ, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 839, 377 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-godin-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack