People v. Rupnarain
This text of 299 A.D.2d 498 (People v. Rupnarain) 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.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered January 26, 2000, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court’s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant concerning two prior convictions of assault and robbery, was proper. Those convictions were relevant to the issues of the defendant’s credibility as a witness and his willingness to place his interests above those of society (see People v Bennette, 56 NY2d 142; People v Williams, 249 AD2d 427, 428).
The defendant’s objections to the allegedly prejudicial comments made by the prosecutor during his cross-examination of defense witnesses and on summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), or are without merit (see People v Singh, 299 AD2d 498 [decided herewith]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
299 A.D.2d 498, 749 N.Y.S.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rupnarain-nyappdiv-2002.