People v. Butchino
| Decision Date | 30 June 1988 |
| Citation | 141 A.D.2d 986,530 N.Y.S.2d 642 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roger M. BUTCHINO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Vaughn N. Aldrich, Hogansburg, for appellant.
James P. Bessette, Dist. Atty. (Jonathan C. Wool, of counsel), Malone, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, WEISS, YESAWICH and MERCURE, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Plumadore, J.), rendered July 20, 1987, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.
On December 13, 1986, police officers executed a search warrant of premises at 29 Cedar Street in the Village of Malone, Franklin County, and seized a quantity of cocaine, other controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. Both defendant and his brother lived in the house. They were charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third, fourth and fifth degrees and were tried jointly. Defendant was found guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth and seventh degrees. He now appeals.
Prior to the trial, County Court held a Sandoval hearing to determine the extent to which defendant's three prior misdemeanor convictions could be used to impeach his credibility if he testified in his own behalf. County Court ruled that the People could inquire into the "date, court and level" of the crimes, but not into the specific acts. At trial, however, the prosecutor opened his cross-examination of defendant by expressly asking defendant if he had previously been convicted of petit larceny and criminal possession of a controlled substance. Defendant did not immediately object but, at the conclusion of that day's testimony and after the jury had been excused, the codefendant's attorney moved for a mistrial based on the violation of the Sandoval ruling. Defendant's attorney made a similar motion the next morning. County Court held that the prosecutor had violated its Sandoval ruling, but denied the motion because defendant failed to timely object.
CPL 470.05(2) permits an objection to be made "at any subsequent time when the court had an opportunity of effectively changing" a ruling or instruction. Here, counsel obviously did not wish to object during the cross-examination and stress in the jurors' minds the importance of the prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nusbaum
...People v. Berard, 112 A.D.2d 470, 490 N.Y.S.2d 884; cf., People v. Martin, 172 A.D.2d 268, 270, 568 N.Y.S.2d 91; People v. Butchino, 141 A.D.2d 986, 987, 530 N.Y.S.2d 642). In view of the immediate curative instruction given here and the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, including......
-
People v. Cheatham
...appropriate curative instructions. We conclude, therefore, that the issue is preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Butchino, 141 A.D.2d 986, 530 N.Y.S.2d 642; People v. Brannon, 58 A.D.2d 34, 394 N.Y.S.2d Addressing the merits, we find that the error in permitting the jury to ......
-
People v. Smith
...for appellate review even though there was no objection until the close of the testimony (see, CPL 470.05[2]; cf., People v. Butchino, 141 A.D.2d 986, 530 N.Y.S.2d 642; People v. Vasquez, 114 A.D.2d 589, 590, 494 N.Y.S.2d 198), it is lacking in merit. The witness was extensively cross-exami......