You are here: / / TRIAL JUDGE ALLOWED THE PROSECUTOR TO QUESTION DEFENDANT ABOUT THE FACTS...
, ,

TRIAL JUDGE ALLOWED THE PROSECUTOR TO QUESTION DEFENDANT ABOUT THE FACTS UNDERLYING PRIOR CONVICTIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE SANDOVAL RULING, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the trial judge implicitly changed the Sandoval ruling by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant about the underlying facts of prior convictions:

Prior to the trial, the Supreme Court conducted a Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), after which the court ruled that, should the defendant testify on his own behalf, the People would be permitted to ask whether he had two prior felony convictions. However, the People were not permitted to elicit the underlying facts of either of those crimes. …

Without seeking an amendment of the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling, the prosecutor then asked whether he was being arrested that day in 2008 “because there was a DNA match of [him] committing a burglary.” Defense counsel objected, the objection was overruled, and the defendant denied that this was true. The prosecutor persisted in that line of inquiry, and asked whether the defendant had been convicted of burglary in the third degree in 2009. The defendant responded that “[y]es [he] was convicted of a case in 2008.” Nonetheless, without asking for a modified Sandoval ruling, the prosecutor brought up, no less than six times, that the 2008 conviction was for burglary and involved DNA, going so far to ask the defendant to “explain” the facts of his 2008 conviction, with the court instructing the defendant to do so. In one instance, after asking the defendant to confirm that he was charged in the instant case with burglary in the second degree, the prosecutor remarked, in effect, that the instant crime was “the same type of DNA hit that happened back in 2008.” …

The defendant here was denied … [the right to make an informed choice whether to testify] when, after making what he believed to be an informed judgment and taking the witness stand, the Supreme Court implicitly changed the ruling upon which he relied by allowing the prosecutor to continue her course of prejudicial questioning despite objections from defense counsel. People v Walters, 2019 NY Slip Op 03632, Second Dept 5-8-19

 

You might also like
A DISMISSAL BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR TO OPPOSE A MOTION TO DISMISS IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE HAS NO RES JUDICATA EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
Teacher Entitled to Tenure by Estoppel—Proper Way to Calculate Probationary Period Which Included Unpaid Maternity Leave Explained
Agents of Property Owner Can Be Liable Under Labor Law 240(1)
THE REFEREE’S REPORT RELIED ON HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE IT WAS A LICENSED DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY PURSUANT TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE BANK DID NOT ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURORS AFTER THEY RETURNED AN INCONSISTENT VERDICT WERE INADEQUATE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT.
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; BUT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT DRIVER’S CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE UNION’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE FROM A VILLAGE POLICE OFFICER’S PAYCHECK WAS A BREACH-OF-CONTRACT ACTION FOR WHICH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN RUNNING ANEW FOR EACH PAYCHECK (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PROHIBITED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT... NEW TRIAL ORDERED BECAUSE THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE VERDICT SHEET COULD NOT BE...