People v. Hardy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hardy

264 A.D.2d 399, 695 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8483

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

DecidedAugust 2, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 399 (People v. Hardy) 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. Hardy, 264 A.D.2d 399, 695 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered June 21, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

As the People correctly concede on appeal, it was error for the trial court to admit evidence of the defendant’s two previous convictions arising from the sale of cocaine in 1988 and 1989. Such evidence did not refute the defendant’s claim that [400]*400he had been framed by the police, but merely tended to show his criminal propensity (see, People v Crandall, 67 NY2d 111; see also, People v Blair, 90 NY2d 1003; People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 54-56; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241-242). The error was not harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). We therefore reverse and grant the defendant a new trial.

The defendant’s contention that the court should have granted him and his codefendant (see, People v Dowdell, 264 AD2d 398 [decided herewith]) separate trials is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174).

In view of our determination that there must be a new trial, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered June 21, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

As the People correctly concede on appeal, it was error for the trial court to admit evidence of the defendant’s two previous convictions arising from the sale of cocaine in 1988 and 1989. Such evidence did not refute the defendant’s claim that [400]*400he had been framed by the police, but merely tended to show his criminal propensity (see, People v Crandall, 67 NY2d 111; see also, People v Blair, 90 NY2d 1003; People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 54-56; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241-242). The error was not harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). We therefore reverse and grant the defendant a new trial.

The defendant’s contention that the court should have granted him and his codefendant (see, People v Dowdell, 264 AD2d 398 [decided herewith]) separate trials is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174).

In view of our determination that there must be a new trial, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 399, 695 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hardy-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack