People v. Jimenez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jimenez

264 A.D.2d 643, 696 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9289

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 643 (People v. Jimenez) 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. Jimenez, 264 A.D.2d 643, 696 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered February 21, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling, which allowed the prosecution to inquire into a prior conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance while precluding inquiry into its underlying facts, was a proper exercise of discretion that struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of defendant’s prior conviction and the risk of unfair prejudice to him (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292).

A review of the reasonable doubt charge, as a whole, establishes that it contained no burden-shifting language and did not impose an affirmative obligation on the jury to articulate a basis for such doubt (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 251-252). Concur — Rubin, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered February 21, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling, which allowed the prosecution to inquire into a prior conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance while precluding inquiry into its underlying facts, was a proper exercise of discretion that struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of defendant’s prior conviction and the risk of unfair prejudice to him (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292).

A review of the reasonable doubt charge, as a whole, establishes that it contained no burden-shifting language and did not impose an affirmative obligation on the jury to articulate a basis for such doubt (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 251-252). Concur — Rubin, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 643, 696 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jimenez-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack