People v. Witzigman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Witzigman

295 A.D.2d 990, 743 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6252

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

DecidedJune 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 990 (People v. Witzigman) 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. Witzigman, 295 A.D.2d 990, 743 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Oneida County Court (Dwyer, J.), entered November 19, 1999, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court’s Sandoval ruling did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 207-208). By ruling that defendant could be asked on cross-examination whether he previously had been convicted of a felony and two misdemeanors without reference to the underlying criminal acts, the court properly balanced the probative value of that evidence against its potential for prejudice (see People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459; People v Wheeler, 281 AD2d 949, lv denied 96 NY2d 836; People v Brockway, 277 AD2d 482, 485). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Hurlbutt, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Oneida County Court (Dwyer, J.), entered November 19, 1999, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court’s Sandoval ruling did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 207-208). By ruling that defendant could be asked on cross-examination whether he previously had been convicted of a felony and two misdemeanors without reference to the underlying criminal acts, the court properly balanced the probative value of that evidence against its potential for prejudice (see People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459; People v Wheeler, 281 AD2d 949, lv denied 96 NY2d 836; People v Brockway, 277 AD2d 482, 485). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Hurlbutt, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 990, 743 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-witzigman-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack