People v. Marsala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marsala

122 A.D.2d 80, 504 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59149

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 80 (People v. Marsala) 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. Marsala, 122 A.D.2d 80, 504 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Green-berg, J.), rendered January 7, 1985, convicting him of coercion in the first degree (two counts), and attempted coercion in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the defendant to be cross-examined concerning his previous conviction of criminal contempt. That prior conviction was based on the defendant’s refusal to answer relevant questions before a Grand Jury, notwithstanding a grant of immunity. That was a crime which demonstrated a "determination deliberately to further self-interest at the expense of society or in derogation of the interests of others” (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 377). Moreover, it was a crime which differed substantially from the ones for which the defendant was on trial, so that the risk of prejudice was minimal (see, People v Sandoval, supra, at pp 377-378; see also, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292; People v Rahman, 46 NY2d 882). Therefore, the trial court properly concluded that the probative value of cross-examination with regard to that prior conviction outweighed the possible prejudice that might result.

The defendant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Spatt, 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, Kings County (Green-berg, J.), rendered January 7, 1985, convicting him of coercion in the first degree (two counts), and attempted coercion in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the defendant to be cross-examined concerning his previous conviction of criminal contempt. That prior conviction was based on the defendant’s refusal to answer relevant questions before a Grand Jury, notwithstanding a grant of immunity. That was a crime which demonstrated a "determination deliberately to further self-interest at the expense of society or in derogation of the interests of others” (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 377). Moreover, it was a crime which differed substantially from the ones for which the defendant was on trial, so that the risk of prejudice was minimal (see, People v Sandoval, supra, at pp 377-378; see also, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292; People v Rahman, 46 NY2d 882). Therefore, the trial court properly concluded that the probative value of cross-examination with regard to that prior conviction outweighed the possible prejudice that might result.

The defendant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 80, 504 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marsala-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack