People v. Newsome

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Newsome

170 A.D.2d 310, 566 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1953

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D.2d 310 (People v. Newsome) 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. Newsome, 170 A.D.2d 310, 566 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1953 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Albert Williams, J.), rendered March 31, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment of IVi to AVz years, unanimously affirmed.

Testimony by the arresting officer that defendant was "hyper” and "drooling” at the time of his arrest did not circum[311]*311vent the court’s Sandoval ruling barring the prosecutor from inquiring into defendant’s use of crack. A present sense impression does not fall under the strictures of a Sandoval ruling, nor did the terms in and of themselves violate the court’s subsequent refusal to allow inquiry into the defendant’s drug usage.

Further, if we were to find error, it would be considered harmless, based on the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Albert Williams, J.), rendered March 31, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment of IVi to AVz years, unanimously affirmed.

Testimony by the arresting officer that defendant was "hyper” and "drooling” at the time of his arrest did not circum[311]*311vent the court’s Sandoval ruling barring the prosecutor from inquiring into defendant’s use of crack. A present sense impression does not fall under the strictures of a Sandoval ruling, nor did the terms in and of themselves violate the court’s subsequent refusal to allow inquiry into the defendant’s drug usage.

Further, if we were to find error, it would be considered harmless, based on the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 310, 566 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-newsome-nyappdiv-1991.