People v. McGill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McGill

260 A.D.2d 581, 689 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4055

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

DecidedApril 19, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 581 (People v. McGill) 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. McGill, 260 A.D.2d 581, 689 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.), rendered July 29, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Sandoval, 34 [582]*582NY2d 371). Had the defendant elected to testify on his own behalf, the ruling would have allowed inquiry into his convictions of three prior crimes, but not into the underlying facts of those crimes. The defendant’s previous convictions were probative on the issues of his credibility and his willingness to place his interests above those of society (People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455; People v Pavao, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, 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 (DeLury, J.), rendered July 29, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Sandoval, 34 [582]*582NY2d 371). Had the defendant elected to testify on his own behalf, the ruling would have allowed inquiry into his convictions of three prior crimes, but not into the underlying facts of those crimes. The defendant’s previous convictions were probative on the issues of his credibility and his willingness to place his interests above those of society (People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455; People v Pavao, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 581, 689 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcgill-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack