From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Balkum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 14, 1989
149 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

April 14, 1989

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Connell, J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: The prosecutor impermissibly implied, during his cross-examination of defendant and on summation, that defendant's drug addiction and poverty indicated a propensity to commit the crime charged (see, People v. Wright, 41 N.Y.2d 172; People v Torres, 119 A.D.2d 508, 509-511; People v. Hicks, 102 A.D.2d 173, 182-183). This error was exacerbated by the court's refusal to charge that defendant's drug addiction was not to be considered as evidence of his propensity to commit the crime charged (see, People v. Ciervo, 123 A.D.2d 393, 396; see also, People v Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 46). It was error for the court to offer to charge the jury in this regard only if defendant agreed to an additional charge that such evidence could be considered by the jury to prove motive. Defendant should not be placed in a position where he has to bargain for his right to a proper charge. Additionally, the trial court erred in permitting the service of a late notice of identification testimony and admitting this testimony. The People's excuse that the notice was late because of a typographical error is merely law office failure, and does not constitute "good cause shown" (CPL 710.30; People v. O'Doherty, 70 N.Y.2d 479, 485-487; People v Briggs, 38 N.Y.2d 319, 324).


Summaries of

People v. Balkum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 14, 1989
149 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Balkum

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIE BALKUM…

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

Date published: Apr 14, 1989

Citations

149 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
540 N.Y.S.2d 113

Citing Cases

State v. Warholic

See State v. Williams, supra, 204 Conn. 546-47. A prosecutor may not ask a question or make a comment during…

People v. Simms

While a defendant who chooses to testify at trial may be cross-examined with respect to any immoral, vicious…