People v. Grice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grice

177 A.D.2d 271, 576 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14203

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 7, 1991·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered December 4, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the record reveals that the trial court weighed the probative worth of the evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice and permissibly concluded that the prosecution should be permitted to inquire into the facts underlying the defendant’s prior drug sale. [272]*272(People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371.) The evidence was probative of the defendant’s willingness to place his interests above those of society, and was particularly probative on the issue of credibility. (People v Aiken, 162 AD2d 106, lv denied 76 NY2d 851.) Furthermore, that the defendant was the only material source of testimony in support of his defense, while relevant, is but one factor to consider in determining whether inquiry should be permitted into a prior conviction. (People v Sandoval, supra, at 378.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered December 4, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the record reveals that the trial court weighed the probative worth of the evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice and permissibly concluded that the prosecution should be permitted to inquire into the facts underlying the defendant’s prior drug sale. [272]*272(People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371.) The evidence was probative of the defendant’s willingness to place his interests above those of society, and was particularly probative on the issue of credibility. (People v Aiken, 162 AD2d 106, lv denied 76 NY2d 851.) Furthermore, that the defendant was the only material source of testimony in support of his defense, while relevant, is but one factor to consider in determining whether inquiry should be permitted into a prior conviction. (People v Sandoval, supra, at 378.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

People v. Grice, 177 A.D.2d 271, 576 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

177 A.D.2d 271 (People v. Grice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related