From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cecilio Cruz

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 5, 1979
392 N.E.2d 565 (N.Y. 1979)

Opinion

Argued May 3, 1979

Decided June 5, 1979

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, SAMUEL A. WELCOME, J.

Randolph Volkell and William E. Hellerstein for appellant.

Eugene Gold, District Attorney (Elyse Bohm of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant's wife, who on direct examination had not testified as a character witness, was cross-examined regarding defendant's prior criminal record. While this was concededly error, such questioning did not rise to the level of constitutional error depriving defendant of a fair trial. In such circumstances, and in view of the court's efforts to give curative instructions, the overwhelming evidence against defendant, and the lack of significant probability of acquittal absent such testimony, this cross-examination constituted harmless error (People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER and FUCHSBERG concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Cecilio Cruz

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 5, 1979
392 N.E.2d 565 (N.Y. 1979)
Case details for

People v. Cecilio Cruz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CECILIO CRUZ, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 5, 1979

Citations

392 N.E.2d 565 (N.Y. 1979)
392 N.E.2d 565
418 N.Y.S.2d 578

Citing Cases

People v. Walls

However, in the present case the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that there was no significant…

People v. Nielson

Defendant did not testify at trial and his character was not at issue. It was error to permit the prosecutor,…