People v. Varella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Varella

213 A.D.2d 184, 623 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2502

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 184 (People v. Varella) 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. Varella, 213 A.D.2d 184, 623 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered June 17, 1992, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court duly balanced the probative value against the possible prejudicial effect of defendant’s prior convictions (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), and appropriately exercised its discretion in permitting limited cross-examination of defendant, should he testify, regarding two prior convictions for attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. As ruled by the trial court, a defendant may not shield himself from impeachment solely on the basis of his tendency to specialize in a particular field of criminal behavior (People v Reyes, 171 AD2d 461, 462, lv denied 77 NY2d 999). The record indicates that the trial court, properly exercising its discretionary power, specifically rejected defendant’s suggestion of a Sandoval ruling that only the fact of defendant’s two prior felony convictions might be elicited, and in light of the overwhelming evidence in this case, it is unlikely that even with the Sandoval ruling suggested by defendant the result would have been different (see, People v Hicks, 88 AD2d 519, 520). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered June 17, 1992, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court duly balanced the probative value against the possible prejudicial effect of defendant’s prior convictions (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), and appropriately exercised its discretion in permitting limited cross-examination of defendant, should he testify, regarding two prior convictions for attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. As ruled by the trial court, a defendant may not shield himself from impeachment solely on the basis of his tendency to specialize in a particular field of criminal behavior (People v Reyes, 171 AD2d 461, 462, lv denied 77 NY2d 999). The record indicates that the trial court, properly exercising its discretionary power, specifically rejected defendant’s suggestion of a Sandoval ruling that only the fact of defendant’s two prior felony convictions might be elicited, and in light of the overwhelming evidence in this case, it is unlikely that even with the Sandoval ruling suggested by defendant the result would have been different (see, People v Hicks, 88 AD2d 519, 520). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 184, 623 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-varella-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack