From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Melideo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1986
124 A.D.2d 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

November 10, 1986

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Celli, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Lawton, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On this appeal from a judgment of conviction, entered following a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree, defendant contends that: (1) the court erred in its Sandoval ruling that if defendant were to take the stand in his own behalf at trial, he could be cross-examined about the fact that he had another indictment pending against him charging him with criminal possession of a forged instrument and grand larceny; (2) the prosecutor improperly showed that defendant had a motive to rob because he was poor; and (3) certain comments made by the prosecutor in his summation were inflammatory and deprived defendant of a fair trial.

The trial court's reliance on People v Pavao ( 59 N.Y.2d 282) to permit the prosecutor to ask defendant on cross-examination whether he had an indictment pending against him was misplaced. Pavao has not changed the established rule that a defendant may not be asked if he has been indicted (People v Rahming, 26 N.Y.2d 411, 419; People v Morrison, 194 N.Y. 175, 178). However, should a defendant take the stand, he may be cross-examined concerning the facts underlying the pending indictment (People v Edwards, 80 A.D.2d 993, 994).

During the trial, the defendant was asked, "By the way, Mr. Melideo, you currently have a charge of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree and Grand Larceny in the Third Degree filed on December 23rd, 1983, do you not?" This one isolated question asked in accordance with the erroneous Sandoval ruling does not require a reversal. The overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt renders the improper Sandoval ruling harmless error (see, People v Shields, 46 N.Y.2d 764; People v Bostwick, 92 A.D.2d 697; People v Hicks, 88 A.D.2d 519, 520; see also, People v Ferrara, 105 A.D.2d 497, 498).

We have reviewed defendant's other claims of error and find that they are either unpreserved or without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Melideo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1986
124 A.D.2d 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Melideo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES MELIDEO…

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

Date published: Nov 10, 1986

Citations

124 A.D.2d 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Bailey

In our view, however, the prosecutor tendered a race-neutral reason for his use of this peremptory challenge…