People v. Kelland
| Decision Date | 31 October 1994 |
| Citation | 208 A.D.2d 954,618 N.Y.S.2d 96 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Willie J. KELLAND, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Stephen J. Pittari, White Plains (Robert W. Stieve of counsel), for appellant.
Jeanine Pirro, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Peter D. Gormanly and Richard Longworth Hecht, of counsel), for respondent.
Before RITTER, J.P., and COPERTINO, FRIEDMANN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered August 21, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court's Sandoval ruling effectively prevented him from presenting a defense. We disagree. The trial court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant for impeachment purposes concerning the underlying facts of certain prior convictions of theft-related crimes in the event the defendant testified at trial, was not an improvident exercise of discretion. The defendant has an extensive criminal record. The mere fact that a defendant has committed crimes similar to the ones with which he is charged does not automatically preclude the prosecutor from using evidence of such crimes for impeachment purposes (see, People v. Sharkey, 186 A.D.2d 63, 588 N.Y.S.2d 149; People v. Woods, 158 A.D.2d 566, 551 N.Y.S.2d 333; People v. Winfield, 145 A.D.2d 449, 450, 535 N.Y.S.2d 619). Moreover, the defendant's prior convictions were highly relevant to the issue of his credibility and demonstrated the defendant's willingness to deliberately further his self-interest at the expense of society (see, People v. Lowenstein, 203 A.D.2d 304, 610 N.Y.S.2d 61; People v. Dillon, 189 A.D.2d 775, 592 N.Y.S.2d 403; People v. Winfield, supra ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2] or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Webb
...was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882, 414 N.Y.S.2d 683, 387 N.E.2d 614; People v. Kelland, 208 A.D.2d 954, 618 N.Y.S.2d 96; People v. Sullivan, 201 A.D.2d 518, 609 N.Y.S.2d 793). Further, the court's ruling that the police had obtained consent ......
-
People v. McLemore
...was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882, 414 N.Y.S.2d 683, 387 N.E.2d 614; People v. Kelland, 208 A.D.2d 954, 618 N.Y.S.2d 96; People v. Sullivan, 201 A.D.2d 518, 609 N.Y.S.2d The appellant claims that his conviction is against the weight of the e......
- People v. Laboy
-
People v. Creel
...further his self-interest at the expense of society (see, People v. Drakes, 211 A.D.2d 809, 621 N.Y.S.2d 668; People v. Kelland, 208 A.D.2d 954, 618 N.Y.S.2d 96; People v. Miller, 199 A.D.2d 422, 423, 605 N.Y.S.2d 342). Moreover, any similarities between the defendant's prior conviction and......