People v. Hightower

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hightower

237 A.D.2d 166, 654 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2670

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 166 (People v. Hightower) 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. Hightower, 237 A.D.2d 166, 654 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered April 19, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 22 years to life and 20 years to life, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a temporary lawful possession charge, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence supporting such charge (People v Banks, 76 NY2d 799, 801; People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900; People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043).

Since defendant had made a statement to the police consisting, under the circumstances, of an admission of guilt, he was properly cross-examined concerning that statement’s omission of the exculpatory material defendant presented in his testimony (People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673, cert denied 449 US 1016; People v Spinelli, 214 AD2d 135, 141-142). We further conclude that defendant’s cross-examination of the arresting officer concerning defendant’s postarrest statement and subsequent silence opened the door to redirect examination on the same subject.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered April 19, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 22 years to life and 20 years to life, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a temporary lawful possession charge, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence supporting such charge (People v Banks, 76 NY2d 799, 801; People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900; People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043).

Since defendant had made a statement to the police consisting, under the circumstances, of an admission of guilt, he was properly cross-examined concerning that statement’s omission of the exculpatory material defendant presented in his testimony (People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673, cert denied 449 US 1016; People v Spinelli, 214 AD2d 135, 141-142). We further conclude that defendant’s cross-examination of the arresting officer concerning defendant’s postarrest statement and subsequent silence opened the door to redirect examination on the same subject.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 166, 654 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hightower-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack