People v. Jeudi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jeudi

139 A.D.2d 594, 527 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3825

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

DecidedApril 11, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 139 A.D.2d 594 (People v. Jeudi) 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. Jeudi, 139 A.D.2d 594, 527 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.), rendered May 27, 1986, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling, which permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant with respect to a prior shooting incident similar to the crime for which he was on trial, was not abuse of discretion. The earlier incident occurred only two days before the crime charged and demonstrated a disregard for the safety of others in furtherance of the defendant’s own interests thereby impacting directly upon the issue of the defendant’s credibility (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 377). The similarity between the prior crime and the crime charged does not automatically preclude inquiry (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292; People v Torres, 110 AD2d 794, 795).

We also find that the spontaneous testimony of an eyewitness to the crime, which referred to a prior criminal act of the defendant precluded by the Sandoval ruling, does not mandate reversal of his conviction. The remark was a single isolated response which was not solicited by the prosecutor. Moreover, the court issued prompt curative instructions and there was overwhelming evidence of guilt. Therefore, the error was harmless (see, People v Kelly, 38 AD2d 1004; People v Jackson, 20 AD2d 918; cf., People v Cruz, 72 AD2d 748). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Lawrence and Weinstein, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.), rendered May 27, 1986, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling, which permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant with respect to a prior shooting incident similar to the crime for which he was on trial, was not abuse of discretion. The earlier incident occurred only two days before the crime charged and demonstrated a disregard for the safety of others in furtherance of the defendant’s own interests thereby impacting directly upon the issue of the defendant’s credibility (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 377). The similarity between the prior crime and the crime charged does not automatically preclude inquiry (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292; People v Torres, 110 AD2d 794, 795).

We also find that the spontaneous testimony of an eyewitness to the crime, which referred to a prior criminal act of the defendant precluded by the Sandoval ruling, does not mandate reversal of his conviction. The remark was a single isolated response which was not solicited by the prosecutor. Moreover, the court issued prompt curative instructions and there was overwhelming evidence of guilt. Therefore, the error was harmless (see, People v Kelly, 38 AD2d 1004; People v Jackson, 20 AD2d 918; cf., People v Cruz, 72 AD2d 748). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Lawrence and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 594, 527 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jeudi-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack