From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Carter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 30, 1985
113 A.D.2d 949 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

September 30, 1985

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Monserrate, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must, defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied ___ US ___, 105 S Ct 327; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Defendant was caught in a bedroom in which the window screen was broken and the window fan was thrown to the ground. He was holding a guitar case owned by the person who rented the bedroom. Any issues of credibility were matters for the jury to determine (see, People v Charles, 112 A.D.2d 377; People v Bigelow, 106 A.D.2d 448). Defendant's claim that the Sandoval hearing which was held was inadequate is without merit, since it is the burden of the defendant to "inform the court of the prior convictions and misconduct which might unfairly affect him as a witness in his own behalf" (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 378). Furthermore, the Sandoval ruling permitting the prosecutor to ask the defendant on cross-examination if he had been convicted of a misdemeanor, without going into the underlying facts, was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v Torres, 110 A.D.2d 794; People v Wood, 94 A.D.2d 814).

Defendant's claims that the trial court's charge was inadequate and that the prosecutor's summation was improper were unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467; People v Gonzales, 77 A.D.2d 654, affd 56 N.Y.2d 1001). In any event, no circumstantial evidence charge was required in this case, contrary to defendant's contention, since the prosecution's case was based both on direct and circumstantial evidence (People v Ruiz, 52 N.Y.2d 929; People v Cyrus, 111 A.D.2d 867); moreover, the portions of the prosecutor's summation assailed by defendant constituted a proper response to the defense counsel's summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, 77-78, cert denied 362 U.S. 912).

Defendant's other claims have been reviewed and are without merit. Mangano, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Carter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 30, 1985
113 A.D.2d 949 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Carter

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KENNETH CARTER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 30, 1985

Citations

113 A.D.2d 949 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

People v. Townsend

hn's refusal to testify add critical weight to the People's case in a form not subject to cross-examination…

People v. Jones

This application was relevant to and could significantly bear upon the question of the defendant's…