People v. Polite

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Polite

302 A.D.2d 227, 753 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 882

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 6, 2003·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered December 1, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3V2 to 7 years and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Although defendant refused to sign the trespass notice that was read to him after he had stolen items from the same store one year before the instant crime, that notice, which clearly and unequivocally informed him that he was prohibited from ever entering the premises again, established that when defendant entered the store, he did so unlawfully (People v McCants, 194 AD2d 301, lv denied 82 NY2d 722).

The court’s Sandoval ruling, which precluded inquiry into a large portion of defendant’s prior record and permitted very limited inquiry into matters that were clearly relevant to his credibility, balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered December 1, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3V2 to 7 years and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Although defendant refused to sign the trespass notice that was read to him after he had stolen items from the same store one year before the instant crime, that notice, which clearly and unequivocally informed him that he was prohibited from ever entering the premises again, established that when defendant entered the store, he did so unlawfully (People v McCants, 194 AD2d 301, lv denied 82 NY2d 722).

The court’s Sandoval ruling, which precluded inquiry into a large portion of defendant’s prior record and permitted very limited inquiry into matters that were clearly relevant to his credibility, balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

People v. Polite, 302 A.D.2d 227, 753 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

302 A.D.2d 227 (People v. Polite) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related