People v. Bearthea
| Citation | 567 N.Y.S.2d 308,171 A.D.2d 751 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Charles BEARTHEA, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1991 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Hillary Lamberton and Joseph A. Zayas, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Anthea H. Bruffee and Camille O'Hara Gillespie, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and BROWN, O'BRIEN and RITTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered February 9, 1988, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling which denied his motion to preclude the prosecutor from cross-examining him, in the event he testified, as to his convictions and the underlying facts with respect to four of his eight prior involvements with law enforcement officials, was not an improvident exercise of its discretion (see, People v. Branch, 155 A.D.2d 475, 547 N.Y.S.2d 137; People v. Murray, 144 A.D.2d 498, 534 N.Y.S.2d 194; People v. Ortiz, 143 A.D.2d 107, 531 N.Y.S.2d 357).
We find similarly unpersuasive the defendant's contention that he was effectively foreclosed from testifying based upon the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling. The record reveals that the Supreme Court made its determination after hearing argument presented by both sides as to the factors to be considered (see, People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236, 451 N.Y.S.2d 690, 436 N.E.2d 1292; People v. Byrd, 128 A.D.2d 796, 513 N.Y.S.2d 496; People v. Wendel, 123 AD2d 410, 506 N.Y.S.2d 472), and there was no improvident exercise of discretion here (see, People v. Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 147, 451 N.Y.S.2d 647, 436 N.E.2d 1249).
Finally, the Supreme Court properly precluded the introduction of the defendant's exculpatory statement as part of the defense case. The statement was made approximately two hours after the defendant's arrest, "at a time when defendant had had an adequate opportunity to reflect upon his situation" (People v. Sostre, 51 N.Y.2d 958, 960, 435 N.Y.S.2d 702, 416 N.E.2d 1038), and constituted impermissible hearsay evidence (see, People v. Booker, 158 A.D.2d 700, 701, 552 N.Y.S.2d 150; People v. Dvoroznak, 127 A.D.2d 785, 512 N.Y.S.2d 180).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lakram
... ... Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 376, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413; People v. Bearthea, 171 A.D.2d 751, 567 N.Y.S.2d 308) ... We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit ... ...
-
People v. Davis
... ... Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413), and the Supreme Court was not obliged to make use of the "Sandoval compromise" (see, People v. Padilla, 123 A.D.2d 364, 506 N.Y.S.2d 448; People v. Hicks, 88 A.D.2d 519, 450 N.Y.S.2d 15; see ... also, People v. Bearthea, App.Div., 567 N.Y.S.2d 308; People v. Hamilton, App.Div., 568 N.Y.S.2d 328). Moreover, the sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675) ... KOOPER, J.P., and HARWOOD, ROSENBLATT ... ...
-
People v. West
... ... Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 376, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413; People v. Bearthea, 171 A.D.2d 751, 567 N.Y.S.2d 308) ... The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial because the court permitted the prosecutor to question him about his failure to tell the police that a friend of his committed the robbery ... As only a general objection ... ...
-
People v. Reese
... ... In light of the defendant's other involvement with the criminal justice system about which the People could properly have made inquiry, we are not persuaded that the ruling at issue unduly affected the defendant's decision not to testify in his own behalf (cf., People v. Bearthea, 171 A.D.2d 751, 567 N.Y.S.2d 308) [181 A.D.2d 700] or that, in light of the quality and quantity of the evidence against the defendant, a more appropriate Sandoval ruling would have otherwise affected the result (see, People v. Hicks, supra ) ... In light of our determination that ... ...