People v. Buckley

Decision Date12 November 2002
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>EDDIE L. BUCKLEY, Appellant.

Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, O'Brien and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his statement to the police, which was made orally by the defendant and transcribed by a police officer, was admissible even though he now claims to be illiterate. The statement was transcribed contemporaneously with the defendant's spoken word. When the statement was completed, the police detective read it aloud to the defendant, who indicated that it was correct and then signed it. Under these facts, the statement was properly admitted into evidence (see People v Giro, 197 NY 152; People v Montero, 273 AD2d 128).

The defendant's contention that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial is also without merit. After consulting with his attorney, the defendant acknowledged the waiver in open court, was questioned by the court regarding his understanding of the waiver, and confirmed that he wanted to waive his right to a trial by jury. Therefore, the defendant's waiver of a jury trial was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently (see People v Livingston, 184 AD2d 529). Furthermore, there is no prohibition against the same judge presiding over the pretrial suppression hearing and the trial itself (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403; People v Brown, 24 NY2d 168; People v Fore, 231 AD2d 590).

In addition, the court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant, in the event he took the stand, regarding two prior convictions for petit larceny and one prior conviction for criminal impersonation, as those offenses involve acts of dishonesty and untrust-worthiness (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371; People v Miller, 199 AD2d 422; People v Johnson, 122 AD2d 812). Further, the court correctly declined to consider criminal trespass as a lesser included offense since no request for its inclusion was ever made (see CPL 300.50 [2]; People v Handy, 123 AD2d 398).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Barnett
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 11, 2018
    ...an act of dishonesty that bore directly upon his credibility (see People v. Mull, 89 A.D.3d 1445, 932 N.Y.S.2d 635 ; People v. Buckley, 299 A.D.2d 417, 418, 750 N.Y.S.2d 617 ; see generally People v. Sandoval , 34 N.Y.2d at 377, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ). The defendant's contention......
  • People v. Victor
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 5, 2016
    ...an abuse of discretion (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 376–378, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 [1974] ; People v. Buckley, 299 A.D.2d 417, 418, 750 N.Y.S.2d 617 [2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 580, 755 N.Y.S.2d 716, 785 N.E.2d 738 [2003] ; People v. Williams, 243 A.D.2d 833, 837, 664......
  • People v. Booker
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 12, 2002

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT