People v. Allen
| Decision Date | 07 May 1979 |
| Citation | 67 A.D.2d 558,416 N.Y.S.2d 49 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Nelson ALLEN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Arthur J. Selkin, Yorktown Heights, for appellant.
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Lois A. Cullen and Gerald D. Reilly, White Plains, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P. J., and SUOZZI, O'CONNOR and MANGANO, JJ.
The defendant appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The judgment should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted of murdering a fellow prison inmate. The chief prosecution witnesses (Morales and Davis) were two inmates who saw the stabbing take place and identified defendant as the perpetrator. At the trial, the court limited the cross-examination of these eyewitnesses as to their past criminal records. The trial court ruled that People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 applied to a witness who was not a defendant, as well as to a defendant testifying in his own behalf. Questioning of Davis was limited to his recent convictions for attempted rape, robbery and violation of parole, thereby excluding 30-year-old convictions for housebreaking and burglary. Questioning of Morales was limited to his numerous arrests and convictions for robbery and burglary. It was also brought out that Morales was in jail awaiting trial on a manslaughter charge when the murder occurred. No mention could be made of his arrests and convictions for drugs possession, weapons possession, assault or attempted murder.
This was error. There is no authority or reason for applying People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413, Supra to a witness who is not a defendant (see People v. Smoot, 59 A.D.2d 898, 399 N.Y.S.2d 133; People v. Duffy, 44 A.D.2d 298, 306, n 3, 354 N.Y.S.2d 672, 679, affd. 36 N.Y.2d 258, 367 N.Y.S.2d 236, 326 N.E.2d 804).
The holding in Sandoval was a recognition of the danger that evidence of prior criminal or immoral acts of a Defendant -witness tends to portray the defendant as having a propensity to commit crimes in general, and the crime charged in particular, thereby raising to a high degree of probability the likelihood of unfairly prejudicing the jury against the defendant. Therefore, cross-examination of a Defendant -witness is limited to questions relating to such prior criminal or immoral acts which are not remote in time and the nature of which, and the circumstances in which they occurred, bear logically on the issue of defendant's veracity at the time of trial (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 376-377, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 855, 314 N.E.2d 413, 417, Supra ) rather than on his possible propensity to commit the crime with which he is charged. However, certain prior acts of misconduct may have a significant bearing on a witness' credibility, and therefore have pertinency to the truth-finding process. When the witness is Not the defendant, there is no danger that the jury will apply the evidence of prior acts of misconduct to anything but the witness' credibility. Therefore, there is no proper basis to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Chin
...not require the striking of direct testimony (see, e.g., People v. Allen, 50 N.Y.2d 898, 430 N.Y.S.2d 588, 408 N.E.2d 917, affg. 67 A.D.2d 558, 416 N.Y.S.2d 49; People v. Codrington, 109 A.D.2d 891, 487 N.Y.S.2d 83; People v. Jones, 99 A.D.2d 471, 472, 470 N.Y.S.2d 178, overruled on another......
-
People v. Mastin
...incrementally affected the jury's evaluation of credibility (see, People v. Caines, supra, at 278, 634 N.Y.S.2d 94; People v. Allen, 67 A.D.2d 558, 559-560, 416 N.Y.S.2d 49, affd. 50 N.Y.2d 898, 430 N.Y.S.2d 588, 408 N.E.2d 917). Moreover, the evidence of defendant's guilt, including defend......
-
People v. Williams
...cross-examination with respect to prior misconduct (see, People v. Robideau, 121 A.D.2d 769, 503 N.Y.S.2d 181; People v. Allen, 67 A.D.2d 558, 560, 416 N.Y.S.2d 49, affd. 50 N.Y.2d 898, 430 N.Y.S.2d 588, 408 N.E.2d 917). This principle is not applicable when the witness is also a codefendan......
-
People v. Ashner
...curtails the defendant's right to cross-examine a prosecution witness, such an error is not per se reversible (see, People v. Allen, 67 A.D.2d 558, 560, 416 N.Y.S.2d 49, affd 50 N.Y.2d 898, 430 N.Y.S.2d 588, 408 N.E.2d 917). Thus, if error is found, an appellate determination must be made a......
-
Witness examination
...A.D.2d 74, 733 N.Y.S.2d 704 (2d Dept. 2001); People v. Brinkworth , 112 A.D.2d 799, 492 N.Y.S.2d 309 (4th Dept. 1985); People v. Allen , 67 A.D.2d 558, 416 N.Y.S.2d 49 (2d Dept. 1979), aff’d 50 N.Y.2d 898, 430 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1980). Thus, New York follows the “English Rule” in criminal cases,......
-
Witness examination
...A.D.2d 74, 733 N.Y.S.2d 704 (2d Dept. 2001); People v. Brinkworth , 112 A.D.2d 799, 492 N.Y.S.2d 309 (4th Dept. 1985); People v. Allen , 67 A.D.2d 558, 416 N.Y.S.2d 49 (2d Dept. 1979), af ’d 50 N.Y.2d 898, 430 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1980). hus, New York follows the “English Rule” in criminal cases, ......
-
Witness examination
...A.D.2d 74, 733 N.Y.S.2d 704 (2d Dept. 2001); People v. Brinkworth , 112 A.D.2d 799, 492 N.Y.S.2d 309 (4th Dept. 1985); People v. Allen , 67 A.D.2d 558, 416 N.Y.S.2d 49 (2d Dept. 1979), af ’d 50 N.Y.2d 898, 430 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1980). hus, New York follows the “English Rule” in criminal cases, ......
-
Witness examination
...A.D.2d 74, 733 N.Y.S.2d 704 (2d Dept. 2001); People v. Brinkworth , 112 A.D.2d 799, 492 N.Y.S.2d 309 (4th Dept. 1985); People v. Allen , 67 A.D.2d 558, 416 N.Y.S.2d 49 (2d Dept. 1979), aff ’d, 50 N.Y.2d 898, 430 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1980). Thus, New York follows the “English Rule” in criminal case......