From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1980
79 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Opinion

December 8, 1980


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 29, 1978, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The trial court's decision to permit cross-examination of the defendant on his earlier treatment for drug addiction while prohibiting any questioning about his prior drug conviction, should he choose to take the stand, did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The fact that the charges before the court in the instant case also included drug offenses, thereby presenting "a special risk of impermissible prejudice" (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377), should not necessarily have shielded the defendant from any questioning concerning his prior activities along similar lines (cf. People v. Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, affd 46 N.Y.2d 882). On this record, it does not appear that the trial court failed to properly balance the probative value of the proposed questioning against the risk of improper prejudice. Hopkins, J.P., Lazer, Cohalan and Weinstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1980
79 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)
Case details for

People v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CEASAR HILL, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 8, 1980

Citations

79 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Citing Cases

People v. Wendel

Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in ruling, after a Sandoval hearing, that the People could…

People v. Monahan

Based upon the record, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled that the…