You are here: / / SANDOVAL RULING THAT DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A 1991 BURGLARY...
,

SANDOVAL RULING THAT DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A 1991 BURGLARY WAS ERROR; DEFENDANT HAD AN UNBLEMISHED RECORD FOR THE LAST 23 YEARS; ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined County Court should not have ruled defendant could be cross-examined about a 1991 burglary conviction in this assault, DWI and reckless driving case arising from a single car accident. The defendant’s record had been unblemished for 23 years, when he was released from prison. The defendant argued that, but for the Sandoval ruling, he would have testified. The Third Department found the error harmless, however:

In gauging whether a conviction is too remote, courts often consider the period of time during which the defendant was incarcerated, as County Court did here. For instance, in People v Wright (38 AD3d 1004 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 853 [2007]), this Court allowed inquiry about 20-year-old rape and robbery convictions where the defendant had been released from prison “only nine months prior to the present offense” … .

By comparison, here, defendant had been released from prison for 23 years, with an unblemished record leading up to this event. Under these circumstances, we conclude that County Court abused its discretion in allowing inquiry into the 1991 conviction, which was simply too remote … . People v Cole, 2019 NY Slip Op 08452, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

You might also like
UNDER THE FACTS, THE ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING CONVICTION MERGED WITH THE SEXUAL ABUSE AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS.
Board’s Determination Business Was Claimant’s “Employer” Reversed
FAMILY COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (DSS) TO COMMENCE A NEGLECT PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
AT THE TIME OF THE JUVENILE’S ADMISSION TO POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY THE JUDGE DID NOT INFORM HIM OR HIS MOTHER OF THE EXACT NATURE OF HIS “PLACEMENT OUTSIDE THE HOME OR ITS POSSIBLE DURATION” AS REQUIRED BY FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 3213(1); ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Mistakes Leading to Miscalculation of Defendant’s Sentence Privileged
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN HUSBAND CREDIT FOR HIGHER CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER FINAL CHILD SUPPORT AWARD UPON DIVORCE.
BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WERE NOT PART OF THE MOTION TO AMEND THE INDICTMENT OR THE RECORD ON APPEAL, IT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS ACTUALLY INDICTED ON THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE AMENDED INDICTMENT; PLEA VACATED AND AMENDED INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED MOTHER’S VISITATION PETITION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BASED UPON EXECUTIVE LAW 63 AND TWO EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED BY GOVERNOR CUOMO,... PROBATION SENTENCE WHICH EFFECTIVELY EXTENDED THE PROBATION-PERIOD TO SIX YEARS...