People v. Poole
| Decision Date | 27 May 1976 |
| Citation | 383 N.Y.S.2d 688,52 A.D.2d 1010 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nathaniel POOLE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Arlington R. Gleckner, Elmira, for appellant.
D. Bruce Crew, III, Chemung County Dist. Atty., Elmira (Richard L. Parker, Elmira, of counsel), for respondent.
Before KOREMAN, P.J., and GREENBLOTT, MAIN, HERLIHY and REYNOLDS, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered January 8, 1975, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree.
The defendant raises several contentions, none of which we find to be meritorious. The only one that requires discussion is the claim that the trial court improperly made an advance ruling that the District Attorney could use an earlier conviction and other vicious and immoral acts with which the defendant was involved in the past to impeach the credibility of the defendant if he decided to testify. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine the defendant as to the underlying facts of the conviction of manslaughter in the first degree for which the defendant was incarcerated at the Elmira Correctional Facility at the time of the crime charged herein. The Court of Appeals has placed in the hands of the trial court the decision as to the nature and extent of permissible cross-examination when a defendant takes the stand in his own defense (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413). The court held that proof of a prior commission of a crime of calculated violence (People v. Sandoval, supra, p. 377, 357 N.Y.S.2d p. 855, 314 N.E.2d p. 417.) Since the defendant produced no proof in an effort to convince the trial court that the underlying facts of his conviction were such that, applying the Sandoval rule, proof of his prior conviction should have been barred, we find no error in the trial court's decision. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's application. (People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 367 N.Y.S.2d 236, 326 N.E.2d 804.)
Defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Malphurs
...to inform the court of the prior misconduct which might unfairly affect him as a witness in his own behalf (see People v. Poole, 52 A.D.2d 1010, 383 N.Y.S.2d 688; People v. Ortero, 75 A.D.2d 168, 174, 428 N.Y.S.2d 965; see also, People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 263, 367 N.Y.S.2d 236, 326 N.E......
-
People v. Dodt
...Sandoval rule, proof of his prior convictions should have been barred, we find no error in the trial court's decision (People v. Poole, 52 A.D.2d 1010, 383 N.Y.S.2d 688). As in the recent case of People v. Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 451 N.Y.S.2d 647, 436 N.E.2d 1249,supra, defendant here was ......
-
People v. Shields
...particularly where the charge is rape (see People v. Stewart, 85 Misc.2d 385, 390, 380 N.Y.S.2d 909, 914; cf. People v. Poole, 52 A.D.2d 1010, 383 N.Y.S.2d 688)." Although it is far from the sole or absolute test, we must conclude, on balance, that the guilt of the defendant was clearly est......
-
People v. Watson
...particularly where the charge is rape (see People v. Stewart, 85 Misc.2d 385, 390, 380 N.Y.S.2d 909, 914; cf. People v. Poole, 52 A.D.2d 1010, 383 N.Y.S.2d 688). Initially, it lies within the Trial Judge's discretion to curtail the prosecutor's cross-examination in order to prevent any ques......
-
15.24 - 2. The Sandoval Rule
...McGee, 68 N.Y.2d 328, 508 N.Y.S.2d 927 (1986).[2145] . See People v. Matthews, 68 N.Y.2d 118, 506 N.Y.S.2d 149 (1986); People v. Poole, 52 A.D.2d 1010, 383 N.Y.S.2d 688 (3d Dep’t 1976). [2146] . People v. Batchelor, 57 A.D.2d 1059, 395 N.Y.S.2d 846 (4th Dep’t 1977); People v. Travison, 59 A......