People v. Townsend
| Decision Date | 16 February 2010 |
| Citation | 70 A.D.3d 982,897 N.Y.S.2d 448 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Allan TOWNSEND, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
70 A.D.3d 982
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Allan TOWNSEND, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb. 16, 2010.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, N.Y. [Peter A. Bick and Emily J. Green], of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Jennifer S. Michael of counsel), for respondent.
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered September 25, 2007, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a resentence of the same court imposed October 9, 2007.
ORDERED that the judgment and the resentence are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of the defendant's prior crimes and the possible prejudice to the defendant ( see People v. Springer, 13 A.D.3d 657, 658, 787 N.Y.S.2d 386). The fact that several of the defendant's convictions were approximately 20 years old does not, in and of itself, require the preclusion of those convictions for purposes of impeachment ( see People v. Springer, 13 A.D.3d at 658, 787 N.Y.S.2d 386). Similarly, inquiry into the defendant's drug-related offenses need not be precluded on the basis of his alleged drug addiction ( see People v. Hall, 99 A.D.2d 843, 472 N.Y.S.2d 448). The court precluded inquiry into the underlying facts of those prior offenses which involved the use of a weapon, and therefore were most prejudicial to the defendant. The defendant's previous convictions were probative in evaluating his credibility, and thus the court's Sandoval ruling was proper ( see People v. Hines, 3 A.D.3d 580, 771 N.Y.S.2d 164; People v. Williams, 292 A.D.2d 474, 475, 740 N.Y.S.2d 348; People v. Clarke, 265 A.D.2d 566, 696 N.Y.S.2d 879).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair
trial by the Supreme Court's examination of witnesses and other conduct during trial is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. DeNormand, 1 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 767 N.Y.S.2d 380; People...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tripp v. Williams
...underlying the prior conviction.” ( See People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 208, 738 N.Y.S.2d 663, 764 N.E.2d 963 [2002];People v. Townsend, 70 A.D.3d 982, 982, 897 N.Y.S.2d 448 [2d Dept. 2012];People v. Carrasquillo, 204 A.D.2d 735, 735, 612 N.Y.S.2d 424 [2d Dept. 1994].) A Sandoval compromise......
-
People v. Ortiz
...balance between the probative value of the defendant's prior crimes and the possible prejudice to the defendant” ( People v. Townsend, 70 A.D.3d 982, 982, 897 N.Y.S.2d 448;see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413). A defendant is not insulated from impeachment......
-
People v. Kirkland
...so outweighed the probative worth of that evidence on the issue of credibility that exclusion was warranted (see People v Townsend, 70 A.D.3d 982; see also People v Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, 147). There is no merit to the defendant's contention that Penal Law § 70.06 is an ex post facto law ......
-
People v. Kirkland
...convictions so outweighed the probative worth of that evidence on the issue of credibility that exclusion was warranted (see People v Townsend, 70 A.D.3d 982; see also People v Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142, There is no merit to the defendant's contention that Penal Law § 70.06 is an ex post fact......