From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Centeno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 21, 1998
249 A.D.2d 151 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 21, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.).


The trial court properly modified its original Sandoval ruling since defendant's direct testimony at trial implied that he was a drug user who supported his drug habit only by legitimate means. This was misleading under the circumstances and conveyed the impression to the jury that he had never sold drugs in the past, thereby opening the door to the modified ruling ( see, People v. Jones, 238 A.D.2d 251, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 894; People v. Santiago, 169 A.D.2d 557, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 1000). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Centeno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 21, 1998
249 A.D.2d 151 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Centeno

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. POLONIO CENTENO…

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

Date published: Apr 21, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 151 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 249

Citing Cases

People v. Chisholm

In addition, the defendant asserted on cross-examination that he did not "have the heart to deal" drugs, but…