People v. Green

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Green

257 A.D.2d 542, 682 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 695

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 542 (People v. Green) 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. Green, 257 A.D.2d 542, 682 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered September 27, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and, sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling, in which it, inter alia, allowed the prosecutor to inquire with respect to the underlying [543]*543facts of defendant’s youthful offender adjudication in connection with his possession of a stolen car was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Gray, 84 NY2d 709, 712). The underlying facts of such adjudication, based upon possession of stolen property, bear heavily upon a defendant’s credibility (People v Arroyo, 194 AD2d 406, 407). The prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant regarding the underlying facts of the adjudication was not excessively detailed or otherwise improper given defendant’s evasiveness. The fact that defendant volunteered on both direct and cross-examination that he had received youthful offender treatment opened the door to further inquiry along these lines (compare, People v Cook, 37 NY2d 591, 595-596).

We find that the court’s charge as a whole conveyed the appropriate standards regarding reasonable doubt (see, People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817). Concur—Williams, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered September 27, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and, sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling, in which it, inter alia, allowed the prosecutor to inquire with respect to the underlying [543]*543facts of defendant’s youthful offender adjudication in connection with his possession of a stolen car was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Gray, 84 NY2d 709, 712). The underlying facts of such adjudication, based upon possession of stolen property, bear heavily upon a defendant’s credibility (People v Arroyo, 194 AD2d 406, 407). The prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant regarding the underlying facts of the adjudication was not excessively detailed or otherwise improper given defendant’s evasiveness. The fact that defendant volunteered on both direct and cross-examination that he had received youthful offender treatment opened the door to further inquiry along these lines (compare, People v Cook, 37 NY2d 591, 595-596).

We find that the court’s charge as a whole conveyed the appropriate standards regarding reasonable doubt (see, People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817). Concur—Williams, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 542, 682 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-green-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack