People v. Burton
| Decision Date | 01 March 1993 |
| Citation | 594 N.Y.S.2d 300,191 A.D.2d 451 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ceasar BURTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mitchell Gittin, Hauppauge, for appellant.
James M. Catterson, Jr., Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Adrienne Brewington, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and BALLETTA, EIBER and COPERTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.), rendered September 24, 1990, 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.
In his testimony before the Grand Jury, the defendant claimed that at the time of the sale of narcotics in connection with which he was later to be indicted, he was in fact under arrest on an unrelated charge, and was being detained several blocks away from the site of this alleged narcotics transaction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the prosecutor's cross-examination of him during the Grand Jury proceedings was "needlessly argumentative" and "not confined to proper impeachment". We agree with the People that this argument is without merit.
The prosecutor had the right to cross-examine the defendant after the completion of his Grand Jury testimony, and that cross-examination properly included the asking of questions which bore on the defendant's credibility (see, CPL 190.50[5][b]; People v. Thompson, 116 A.D.2d 377, 381-382, 501 N.Y.S.2d 381). The defendant's criminal record, which clearly demonstrated his willingness to place his own interests above those of society, was thus a proper subject for cross-examination. We reject the defendant's argument that this cross-examination was "needlessly argumentative" .
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Arnold
...Smith, 87 N.Y.2d 715, 718, 642 N.Y.S.2d 568, 665 N.E.2d 138; People v. Gonzalez, 201 A.D.2d 414, 416, 607 N.Y.S.2d 670; People v. Burton, 191 A.D.2d 451, 594 N.Y.S.2d 300). However, the prosecution in eliciting defendant's prior bad acts should be cautious in introducing evidence that a jud......
-
People v. Griggs
...willingness to place his own interests above those of society, [it] was thus a proper subject for cross-examination” ( People v. Burton, 191 A.D.2d 451, 451, 594 N.Y.S.2d 300,lv. denied81 N.Y.2d 1011, 600 N.Y.S.2d 199, 616 N.E.2d 856). With respect to the instruction on the defense of tempo......
-
People v. Thomas
...defendant before the Grand Jury was proper and did not impair the integrity of the Grand Jury. As this court stated in People v. Burton, 191 A.D.2d 451, 594 N.Y.S.2d 300: "The prosecutor had the right to cross-examine the defendant after the completion of his Grand Jury testimony, and that ......
-
People v. Barnes
...on the prosecutor's allegedly improper impeachment of him before the grand jury regarding his criminal record ( see People v. Burton, 191 A.D.2d 451, 594 N.Y.S.2d 300,lv. denied81 N.Y.2d 1011, 600 N.Y.S.2d 199, 616 N.E.2d 856), and that the court erred in denying his motion for a trial orde......