People v. Hillard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hillard

167 A.D.2d 280, 561 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13922

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 280 (People v. Hillard) 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. Hillard, 167 A.D.2d 280, 561 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rodger Hayes, J.), rendered February 10, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of from 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Testimony of the complainant and her companions established that after the defendant approached them from behind on the sidewalk, and proceeded to walk past, he was seen to be in possession of complainant’s wallet. A struggle ensued, [281]*281during which defendant was observed tossing complainant’s wallet to the ground.

We find defendant’s argument that he was effectively denied his right to testify by the court’s Sandoval ruling to be without merit. Defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating how the prejudicial effect of the impeachment evidence permitted by the court outweighed the probative worth of such evidence on the issue of credibility. (See, People v Stroman, 83 AD2d 370, 373.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, 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 (Rodger Hayes, J.), rendered February 10, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of from 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Testimony of the complainant and her companions established that after the defendant approached them from behind on the sidewalk, and proceeded to walk past, he was seen to be in possession of complainant’s wallet. A struggle ensued, [281]*281during which defendant was observed tossing complainant’s wallet to the ground.

We find defendant’s argument that he was effectively denied his right to testify by the court’s Sandoval ruling to be without merit. Defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating how the prejudicial effect of the impeachment evidence permitted by the court outweighed the probative worth of such evidence on the issue of credibility. (See, People v Stroman, 83 AD2d 370, 373.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 280, 561 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hillard-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack