People v. Webster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Webster

151 A.D.2d 989, 542 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8309, 56 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 563

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

DecidedJune 2, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 A.D.2d 989 (People v. Webster) 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. Webster, 151 A.D.2d 989, 542 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8309, 56 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although it was error for the prosecutor to read a part of defendant’s Grand Jury testimony relating to his prior conviction for a felony, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt the error may be deemed harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Rullo, 31 NY2d 894, 895; People v Breslin, 21 NY2d 712). Moreover, an objection to the prosecutor’s question was sustained and the court promptly instructed the jury to disregard it.

There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s Sandoval ruling (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). The trial court, in balancing the probative value of such evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant, properly ruled that it would exclude evidence of certain prior crimes but permit evidence of others. Finally, we reject defendant’s claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by the cumulative effect of the alleged errors. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — rape, first degree; sodomy, first degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although it was error for the prosecutor to read a part of defendant’s Grand Jury testimony relating to his prior conviction for a felony, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt the error may be deemed harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Rullo, 31 NY2d 894, 895; People v Breslin, 21 NY2d 712). Moreover, an objection to the prosecutor’s question was sustained and the court promptly instructed the jury to disregard it.

There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s Sandoval ruling (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). The trial court, in balancing the probative value of such evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant, properly ruled that it would exclude evidence of certain prior crimes but permit evidence of others. Finally, we reject defendant’s claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by the cumulative effect of the alleged errors. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — rape, first degree; sodomy, first degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 989, 542 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8309, 56 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-webster-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack