People v. Rahman
| Decision Date | 08 February 1979 |
| Citation | 387 N.E.2d 614,414 N.Y.S.2d 683,46 N.Y.2d 882 |
| Parties | , 387 N.E.2d 614 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ali RAHMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The record does not demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion when it ruled that the prosecution would be permitted to impeach the credibility of the defendant, if he took the stand, by confronting him with two of his prior narcotics convictions. Indeed, there is nothing to indicate that the court did not in fact actually balance the probative worth of the impeaching material against the risk that it might be taken as an indication of a propensity to commit the crimes charged and the fear that its admission might unfairly deter him from testifying at trial (see People v. Mayrant, 43 N.Y.2d 236-240, 401 N.Y.S.2d 165-166, 372 N.E.2d 1-2; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 378, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 856, 314 N.E.2d 413, 418).
Nor does it appear that the court precluded counsel from bringing to its attention any considerations that appropriately should have entered into its determination or that it refused to weigh those that were urged upon it. In particular, there is no reason to conclude that the Trial Judge misapprehended or overlooked her discretionary obligation or refused to apply it in ruling on defendant's motion (cf. People v. Davis, 44 N.Y.2d 269, 405 N.Y.S.2d 428, 376 N.E.2d 901; People v. Mayrant, supra, 43 N.Y.2d at p. 240, 401 N.Y.S.2d at p. 166, 372 N.E.2d at p. 2; People v. Caviness, 38 N.Y.2d 227, 233, 379 N.Y.S.2d 695, 700, 342 N.E.2d 496, 500). Here, to the contrary, the court ruled out the use of another of defendant's drug convictions and the underlying facts of one of those admitted.
Finally, as to the other errors assigned by the defendant, suffice it to say that, under the circumstances of this case, we find they were no more than permissible exercises of the Trial Judge's discretion.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Shepard
...defendant's prior crimes on the issue of credibility against the potential prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882, 883, 414 N.Y.S.2d 683, 387 N.E.2d 614 ; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 375, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ; People v. Cruz, 21 A.D.3d 967, 801 N......
-
People v. Carter
...591; People v. Monahan, 114 A.D.2d 380, 493 N.Y.S.2d 898; People v. Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, 404 N.Y.S.2d 110, affd. 46 N.Y.2d 882, 414 N.Y.S.2d 683, 387 N.E.2d 614). Also without merit is the defendant's contention that the prosecutor violated the Sandoval ruling by questioning him, on cross......
-
People v. Thompson
...prior felony convictions and the crime charged was insufficient to preclude its use on cross-examination (see, People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882, 414 N.Y.S.2d 683, 387 N.E.2d 614; People v. Hendrix, 44 N.Y.2d 658, 405 N.Y.S.2d 31, 376 N.E.2d The defendant contends that the undercover officer'......
-
People v. Farruggia
...Having applied the correct rules, there is no basis for finding that the trial court abused its discretion (People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882, 414 N.Y.S.2d 683, 387 N.E.2d 614). Lastly, although not requiring reversal, the prosecutor should not have stated in his summation that "Mr. Hucknall'......
-
C. Sandoval Hearing
...122 A.D.2d 169, 504 N.Y.S.2d 708 (2d Dep't 1986). [539] People v. Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, 404 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1st Dep't 1978), aff'd, 46 N.Y.2d 882, 414 N.Y.S.2d 683 (1979); see People v. Davis, 43 N.Y.2d 17, 400 N.Y.S.2d 735 (1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 998 (1978); People v. Van Skiver, 111......