People v. Bravo
| Decision Date | 30 October 1989 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Salvatore BRAVO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph F. DeFelice, Ozone Park, for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Bruce E. Whitney and Kenneth L. Fitzgerald, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SPATT, J.P., and SULLIVAN, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered March 27, 1986, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court's ruling permitting the cross-examination of the defendant as to his illegal alien status was improper. The court had originally ruled that the prosecution could not use the defendant's illegal alien status to impeach his credibility on the ground that the prejudice accruing from that evidence would outweigh its probative value. However, when the defendant took the stand he put his character in issue, by testifying that he had never been arrested either in the United States or in Mexico, his native country. Therefore, the court properly permitted the People to cross-examine the defendant as to his illegal entries into the United States (see, People v. Jones, 121 A.D.2d 398, 503 N.Y.S.2d 109).
The defendant also contends that the prosecutor's use of his prior inculpatory statement on cross-examination constitutes reversible error, as no notice of that statement was provided pursuant to CPL 710.30 (People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881). While this court does not condone the prosecutor's conduct, the statute does not require that such notice be provided where a statement made by a defendant is being used solely for purposes of impeachment (CPL 710.30; People v. Rudolph, 134 A.D.2d 539, 521 N.Y.S.2d 304). We note that the trial court promptly curtailed this questioning, prohibited the People from using the statement in rebuttal and gave curative instructions to the jury.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932) we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The police officer testified that he observed the defendant sitting in the front passenger seat of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Shi
...160 A.D.2d 637, 638, 553 N.Y.S.2d 755 [1990];People v. Torriente, 131 A.D.2d 793, 517 N.Y.S.2d 159 [1987];compare People v. Bravo, 154 A.D.2d 690, 546 N.Y.S.2d 892 [1989];People v. Garcia, 146 A.D.2d 584, 585, 536 N.Y.S.2d 834 [1989];People v. Ortero, 75 A.D.2d 168, 175, 428 N.Y.S.2d 965 [1......
- People v. Bradshaw
-
People v. Wynn
...about his previous acts against the complainant (see, People v. Klos, 190 A.D.2d 754, 593 N.Y.S.2d 545; see also, People v. Bravo, 154 A.D.2d 690, 546 N.Y.S.2d 892). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N......
-
People v. Bravo
...N.Y.S.2d 910 75 N.Y.2d 767, 551 N.E.2d 111 People v. Bravo (Salvatore) COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK DEC 11, 1989 Bellacosa, J. 154 A.D.2d 690, 546 N.Y.S.2d 892 App.Div. 2, Nassau Denied ...