From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Malcolm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 23, 1994
204 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

May 23, 1994

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by the court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), which permitted inquiry as to the defendant's nine prior convictions, all of which had occurred within 10 years of the trial. It is well settled that the exclusion of prior convictions is largely a matter of discretion which rests with the trial court (see, People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274; People v. Aguilera, 156 A.D.2d 698, 699). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not abdicate its discretionary responsibilities in rendering its Sandoval ruling, inasmuch as it permitted inquiry only as to whether each of the defendant's previous convictions represented a felony or a misdemeanor, and precluded any inquiry as to the nature or the underlying facts thereof (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236; see, e.g., People v. Mendez, 191 A.D.2d 590; People v Gamble, 182 A.D.2d 703, 704; People v. Aguilera, supra).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, O'Brien and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Malcolm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 23, 1994
204 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Malcolm

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PATRICK MALCOLM…

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

Date published: May 23, 1994

Citations

204 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
612 N.Y.S.2d 204

Citing Cases

People v. Mercado

The defendant contends that the court's Sandoval ruling was improper. We disagree. "It is well settled that…

People v. Hill

Defendant also contends that County Court's Sandoval rulings constituted reversible error. We find no abuse…