From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 4, 1985
108 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

February 4, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it ruled that the prosecutor could question him as to three prior convictions ( see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). We find no reason to disturb that decision.

Defendant had been arrested on approximately 27 occasions between 1973 and 1982. The court granted defendant's Sandoval motion to the extent of excluding questioning with regard to the numerous cases which had been dismissed or in which no dispositions were reported. Questioning was also prohibited with regard to various convictions during the 1974 through 1980 period for, inter alia, attempted robbery, attempted larceny and attempted assault. Questioning was, however, permitted with regard to two 1979 convictions for petit larceny and a 1981 conviction for attempted robbery in the second degree stemming from an incident on the subway.

The extent to which the prosecution should be permitted to impeach the credibility of a testifying defendant through use of his prior convictions and bad acts is a matter left largely to the discretion of the trial court ( see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282). In the case at bar, defendant's numerous earlier arrests and convictions were excluded, while the convictions allowed were fairly recent in time to the March 1983 trial on the present charges. Crimes involving larceny and robbery are highly probative of a defendant's willingness to advance his self-interest at the expense of others ( see, People v Sandoval, supra). The prior crimes were not particularly similar to the one for which defendant was being held. In addition, the court's ruling did not, in fact, prevent defendant from testifying, and so did not impair the fact-finding process ( see, People v Sandoval, supra; People v Rhodes, 96 A.D.2d 565). Thus, we find no error in the court's rulings.

Defendant's assertions that the court's charge and its marshaling of the evidence contained errors are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, lack merit. We have considered defendant's other contentions and find either that they have not been preserved for review or are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 4, 1985
108 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY WILLIAMS…

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

Date published: Feb 4, 1985

Citations

108 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

People v. Woods

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The Trial Judge did not abuse her discretion in permitting the…

People v. Walters

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must, a rational trier of fact could…