People v. Kenchik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kenchik

47 A.D.2d 907, 366 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9331

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

DecidedApril 7, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.2d 907 (People v. Kenchik) 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. Kenchik, 47 A.D.2d 907, 366 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered June 5, 1974, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In the context of this case we see no prejudice to defendant in the exercise of the trial court’s discretion in its determination as to the use of defendant’s prior convictions during any cross-examination of him, were he to testify (here he did not testify). Nevertheless, we ..add, for the guidance of courts making such determinations that such determinations should be made promptly and well in advance of the time that the defendant must make his choice whether to testify or not (cf. People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 375; People v Duffy, 44 AD2d 298, 305). "Revelation of the impeachment testimony and announcement of the trial court’s ruling in advance of trial are consistent with the objectives today of broad pretrial discovery and disclosure” (People v Sandoval, supra, at 375). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Cohalan and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered June 5, 1974, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In the context of this case we see no prejudice to defendant in the exercise of the trial court’s discretion in its determination as to the use of defendant’s prior convictions during any cross-examination of him, were he to testify (here he did not testify). Nevertheless, we ..add, for the guidance of courts making such determinations that such determinations should be made promptly and well in advance of the time that the defendant must make his choice whether to testify or not (cf. People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 375; People v Duffy, 44 AD2d 298, 305). "Revelation of the impeachment testimony and announcement of the trial court’s ruling in advance of trial are consistent with the objectives today of broad pretrial discovery and disclosure” (People v Sandoval, supra, at 375). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Cohalan and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 907, 366 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kenchik-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack