From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Damon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 1989
150 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

May 8, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After a Sandoval hearing (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), the trial court held that if the defendant chose to testify, the prosecutor would be permitted to cross-examine him concerning whether he had been convicted of a felony in 1973 (but not the type of conviction [attempted robbery] or the underlying facts), whether he had been convicted of rape in 1977 (but not the underlying facts), and only the underlying facts of a youthful offender adjudication involving a burglary in 1973 (but not the actual adjudication). In addition, the trial court held that while the prosecutor could not, as part of his direct case, introduce evidence of certain drug paraphernalia found on the defendant's person at the time of his arrest, the prosecutor could cross-examine the defendant concerning such evidence.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find no error in the trial court's Sandoval ruling. It is clear that the trial court did, in fact, balance the probative worth of the impeaching material on the issue of the defendant's credibility against the risk that it might be taken as an indication of a propensity to commit the crime charged (see, People v Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v Monahan, 114 A.D.2d 380, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 654). Further, the prior convictions were not so remote in time as to mandate preclusion in light of the defendant's extensive periods of incarceration in the intervening years (see, People v Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1056). In addition, the defendant failed to demonstrate that t`e preju`icial impact of permitting questioning as to whether he possessed drug paraphernalia at the time of arrest was outweighed by the probative value thereof as to warrant its exclusion (see, People v Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258).

We have considered the defendant's claim that his sentence was excessive and find it to be without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Damon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 1989
150 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Damon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY DAMON…

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

Date published: May 8, 1989

Citations

150 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
541 N.Y.S.2d 82

Citing Cases

People v. White

Following a proper balancing of probative value versus prejudice, the court properly exercised its discretion…

People v. Teen

County Court also ruled defendant could be asked whether his various arrests violated the terms of his parole…