People v. Mujahid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mujahid

63 A.D.3d 560, 882 N.Y.S.2d 52

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

DecidedJune 23, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 560 (People v. Mujahid) 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. Mujahid, 63 A.D.3d 560, 882 N.Y.S.2d 52 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgement Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), rendered April 19, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]). The court properly permitted the People to question defendant about his convictions of deceit-related crimes involving the use of MetroCards, since they were probative of defendant’s credibility and were not prejudicially similar to the instant case, which involved the very different crime of forcibly taking a MetroCard.

Since defendant objected only to certain “specific questions rather than to the Judge’s general course of action or participation as a whole” (People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 888 [1982]), defendant’s constitutional arguments concerning the court’s questioning of witnesses and conduct of the trial are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Sweeny, Buckley, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Judgement Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), rendered April 19, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]). The court properly permitted the People to question defendant about his convictions of deceit-related crimes involving the use of MetroCards, since they were probative of defendant’s credibility and were not prejudicially similar to the instant case, which involved the very different crime of forcibly taking a MetroCard.

Since defendant objected only to certain “specific questions rather than to the Judge’s general course of action or participation as a whole” (People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 888 [1982]), defendant’s constitutional arguments concerning the court’s questioning of witnesses and conduct of the trial are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Sweeny, Buckley, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 560, 882 N.Y.S.2d 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mujahid-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack