People v. Lawson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lawson

293 A.D.2d 338, 740 N.Y.S.2d 199, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3777

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

DecidedApril 16, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 338 (People v. Lawson) 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. Lawson, 293 A.D.2d 338, 740 N.Y.S.2d 199, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered December 10, 1999, 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.

Defendant’s testimony regarding the drug-free nature of his building opened the door to a modification of the court’s Sandoval ruling. Even were we to find it to have been error to permit the People’s expanded cross-examination of defendant concerning his prior record, we would find the error to be harmless in [339]*339view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered December 10, 1999, 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.

Defendant’s testimony regarding the drug-free nature of his building opened the door to a modification of the court’s Sandoval ruling. Even were we to find it to have been error to permit the People’s expanded cross-examination of defendant concerning his prior record, we would find the error to be harmless in [339]*339view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 338, 740 N.Y.S.2d 199, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lawson-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack