From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Henderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 2, 1983
95 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Summary

In People v. Henderson (95 A.D.2d 875), we recently withheld determination of the appeal and remitted for a Sandoval hearing, holding, "The absence of a record effectively impedes any review respecting the correctness of the Sandoval ruling."

Summary of this case from People v. Culver

Opinion

June 2, 1983


Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Zittell, J.), rendered December 1, 1981, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. In this prosecution for the sale of heroin, defendant contends that reversible error occurred because the trial court's Sandoval ruling was made during an unreported pretrial conference. Defendant's request for a Sandoval hearing was initially granted by the court which instructed defense counsel to arrange a suitable time for the hearing with the court clerk. Although no hearing was conducted, the court, in a discussion held off the record, indicated to both counsel that if a Sandoval hearing were to be held, it would limit the prosecutor's cross-examination to two previous petit larceny convictions but disallow testimony regarding other crimes committed by defendant. The absence of a record effectively impedes any review respecting the correctness of the Sandoval ruling. Without a record, we are unable to determine whether the court properly considered the various relevant factors it was obliged to examine in arriving at its decision ( People v Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236; People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274) or if, indeed, the court exercised any discretion whatsoever. Although defendant's trial counsel did not ask to have an official record made of the court's reasoning, the need for such a record is obvious, particularly here where defendant ostensibly declined to testify by reason of the Sandoval ruling and the only other witness to the sale was the buyer, an admitted heroin addict, who had agreed to make the purchase to win favorable treatment on unrelated charges pending against her. Contrary to defendant's assertion, however, his remedy is not a new trial, but remittitur for a Sandoval hearing ( People v. Anderson, 75 A.D.2d 988; 80 A.D.2d 33). Determination of appeal withheld, and matter remitted to the County Court of Columbia County for a hearing and determination of defendant's Sandoval motion. Kane, J.P., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Henderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 2, 1983
95 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

In People v. Henderson (95 A.D.2d 875), we recently withheld determination of the appeal and remitted for a Sandoval hearing, holding, "The absence of a record effectively impedes any review respecting the correctness of the Sandoval ruling."

Summary of this case from People v. Culver
Case details for

People v. Henderson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICARDO HENDERSON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 2, 1983

Citations

95 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

People v. Knights

Accordingly, we withhold determination of the issues raised on this appeal and remit for the conducting of a…

People v. Culver

Among other contentions, defendant argues that the absence of a record of the Sandoval hearing requires…