People v. Ragland

• Decision Date: 10 February 2016
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Carl RAGLAND, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

136 A.D.3d 845
24 N.Y.S.3d 529 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Carl RAGLAND, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Feb. 10, 2016.

Evelyn K. Isaac, Hastings–on–Hudson, N.Y., for appellant.

James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Virginia A. Marciano, Laurie Sapakoff, and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.

136 A.D.3d 845

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zuckerman, J.), rendered June 12, 2014, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly denied his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. The record does not support a finding that the prospective juror possessed "a state of mind that [was] likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at ... trial" (CPL 270.20[1][b] ; see People v. Legette, 96 A.D.3d 1078, 1079, 946 N.Y.S.2d 894 ; People v. Pemberton 305 A.D.2d 430, 758 N.Y.S.2d 518 ).

The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in its Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) is without merit. " ‘[T]he extent to which the prosecution should be allowed to impeach the credibility of a defendant is a matter [left to the] sound discretion of the trial court’ " (People v. Murad, 55 A.D.3d 754, 755, 865 N.Y.S.2d 331, quoting People v. Carrasquillo, 204 A.D.2d 735, 735, 612 N.Y.S.2d 424 ; see People v. Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 451 N.Y.S.2d 647, 436 N.E.2d 1249 ). Here, the trial court's Sandoval compromise, permitting the People to inquire only as to whether the defendant had been convicted of four felonies and five misdemeanors, but precluding questioning about the underlying facts of these convictions, avoided any undue prejudice to the defendant and represented a provident exercise of the...