People v. White

297 A.D.2d 258, 746 N.Y.2d 597, 746 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8180
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 29, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion. In this case involving a confidence game that became a robbery, the court properly permitted elicitation, inter alia, of the underlying facts of defendant’s prior conviction involving a similar confidence game, since that conviction had a very high degree of probative value concerning defendant’s credibility, and this probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect (see, People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203; People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292).

We find the sentences excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

People v. White, 297 A.D.2d 258, 746 N.Y.2d 597, 746 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8180 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

297 A.D.2d 258 (People v. White) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Melendez
74 A.D.3d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Simmons
39 A.D.3d 235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)