People v. Scarpulla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Scarpulla

238 A.D.2d 359, 656 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3230

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 7, 1997·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered April 28, 1995, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[360] The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s application to preclude cross-examination of him with respect to the acts underlying several prior convictions. The court, in limiting inquiry with respect to certain convictions while allowing full inquiry with regard to other convictions, demonstrated sensitivity to the balance between the probative value of the defendant’s prior crimes upon his credibility and the possible prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 375; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 459). "That the number of prior convictions ruled admissible was large” does not establish that the court improvidently exercised its discretion since there are no per se rules requiring preclusion because of the number of the prior crimes (see, People v Walker, supra, at 459). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Thompson and Goldstein, 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 (Kuffner, J.), rendered April 28, 1995, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[360] The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s application to preclude cross-examination of him with respect to the acts underlying several prior convictions. The court, in limiting inquiry with respect to certain convictions while allowing full inquiry with regard to other convictions, demonstrated sensitivity to the balance between the probative value of the defendant’s prior crimes upon his credibility and the possible prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 375; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 459). "That the number of prior convictions ruled admissible was large” does not establish that the court improvidently exercised its discretion since there are no per se rules requiring preclusion because of the number of the prior crimes (see, People v Walker, supra, at 459). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Thompson and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

People v. Scarpulla, 238 A.D.2d 359, 656 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

238 A.D.2d 359 (People v. Scarpulla) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related