People v. Reddick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reddick

293 A.D.2d 554, 739 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3523

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

DecidedApril 8, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 554 (People v. Reddick) 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. Reddick, 293 A.D.2d 554, 739 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered May 20, 1998, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in ruling that the prosecution could inquire into the facts underlying a charge for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, which resulted in the defendant’s adjudication as a youthful offender, if the defendant testified. “It is well settled that the prosecution may inquire as to the underlying facts of a youthful offender adjudication to impeach the defendant’s credibility, so long as the ultimate disposition is not elicited” (People v Javois, 188 AD2d 664; see also People v Gray, 84 NY2d 709; People v Greer, 42 NY2d 170, 176).

The defendant also contends that the Supreme Court improperly denied his motion to set aside the verdict based on newly discovered evidence, pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3). The motion was addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and we find that it providently exercised its discretion (see People v Miller, 124 AD2d 830, 832, cert denied 481 US 1071).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Smith, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity and Crane, 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, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered May 20, 1998, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in ruling that the prosecution could inquire into the facts underlying a charge for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, which resulted in the defendant’s adjudication as a youthful offender, if the defendant testified. “It is well settled that the prosecution may inquire as to the underlying facts of a youthful offender adjudication to impeach the defendant’s credibility, so long as the ultimate disposition is not elicited” (People v Javois, 188 AD2d 664; see also People v Gray, 84 NY2d 709; People v Greer, 42 NY2d 170, 176).

The defendant also contends that the Supreme Court improperly denied his motion to set aside the verdict based on newly discovered evidence, pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3). The motion was addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and we find that it providently exercised its discretion (see People v Miller, 124 AD2d 830, 832, cert denied 481 US 1071).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Smith, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 554, 739 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reddick-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack