People v. Kim

170 A.D.2d 707
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 25, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 170 A.D.2d 707 (People v. Kim) 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. Kim, 170 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered February 17, 1989, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At a pretrial Sandoval hearing (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) the trial court ruled that if the defendant chose to testify, the People would be permitted to cross-examine him regarding, in relevant part, the underlying facts of a pending indictment in Illinois, which facts related to the defendant’s credibility as a witness. Since the defendant did not challenge the Sandoval ruling on the ground that it violated his right against self-incrimination, that issue is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292, n 3; cf., People v Betts, 70 NY2d 289). In any event, the prosecutor asked only one question concerning the underlying facts of the Illinois indictment, and he did not pursue the defendant’s denial. Accordingly, any error was harmless (see, People v Shields, 46 NY2d 764).

The defendant’s further claim that the trial court erred in failing to deliver a justification instruction with regard to the charge of assault in the second degree is similarly unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, there was no reasonable interpretation of the evidence which [708]*708could lead the jury to conclude that the defendant reasonably believed the use of force was necessary (see, People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 818; People v Vasquez, 161 AD2d 678; People v Odinga, 143 AD2d 202, 203-205).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953), or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Blackman
13 A.D.3d 640 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Hilaire
211 A.D.2d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Klos
190 A.D.2d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Montgomery
188 A.D.2d 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Brito
179 A.D.2d 666 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Bennett
169 A.D.2d 369 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
170 A.D.2d 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kim-nyappdiv-1991.