From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Branch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 1989
155 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 6, 1989

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court's Sandoval ruling did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion. After considering the probative value of the defendant's past convictions, arrests and bad acts, as well as the prejudicial effect of this evidence, the court ruled that should the defendant testify he could be cross-examined concerning only two felony and six misdemeanor convictions, including the underlying facts, as well as the two alleged "bad acts".

It is well settled that the exclusion of cross-examination concerning prior convictions is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court (see, People v Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274; People v Shields, 46 N.Y.2d 764). In the case at bar, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion (see, People v Torres, 110 A.D.2d 794; see also, People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830; People v Sito, 114 A.D.2d 1049). Moreover, the fact that several of these crimes involved larcenies, an element of charges facing the defendant at the instant trial, does not compel their suppression as a defendant who specializes in one particular type of crime is not shielded from cross-examination thereon (see, People v Torres, 110 A.D.2d 794, supra; People v Cherry, 106 A.D.2d 458). Furthermore, crimes of larceny are highly probative of a defendant's credibility, as they indicate his willingness to place his own interests above those of society (see, People v Mays, 140 A.D.2d 634; People v Williams, 108 A.D.2d 767). Accordingly, while the court's Sandoval ruling permitted cross-examination concerning the majority of the defendant's past convictions, we do not find this ruling to have been an improvident exercise of discretion.

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Branch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 1989
155 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Branch

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LARRY BRANCH, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 6, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
547 N.Y.S.2d 137

Citing Cases

People v. West

Charles Caruth, the complainant, who was working as a driver for a car service, picked up the defendant and…

People v. Sheppard

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed. The court's Sandoval ruling that the defendant could be impeached by…