From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cherry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 1984
106 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

December 10, 1984

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Namm, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

It was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny defense counsel's motion to preclude cross-examination of defendant regarding the facts underlying defendant's prior convictions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice involving two assaults, one with intent to rape, and the other with intent to "gratify * * * sexual desires". The prior convictions involved acts of calculated violence, which demonstrated defendant's willingness to place his own self-interest ahead of the interests of society (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v Watson, 57 A.D.2d 143, revd on other grounds 45 N.Y.2d 867). Moreover, the prior convictions were not so remote in time as to require preclusion of cross-examination concerning them. The trial court carefully weighed the prejudicial effect of the admission of such evidence against its probative worth on the issue of credibility (see People v. Sandoval, supra). The fact that defendant may specialize in one type of criminal activity should not shield him from impeachment with prior convictions ( People v. Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, affd 46 N.Y.2d 882; see People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282). We also note that defendant's version of events was presented to the jury through the testimony of other witnesses.

Defendant's arguments that the trial court's charge with respect to the evaluation of identification evidence and the marshaling of evidence was inadequate and that he was denied a fair trial as a result of prosecutorial misconduct have not been preserved for review, as a matter of law, since he failed to object to the charge or to the comments he now claims were improper ( People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467; People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311). Nor is review in the interest of justice warranted in the circumstances of this case.

We have examined defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., O'Connor, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Cherry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 1984
106 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

People v. Cherry

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RUFUS R. CHERRY, JR.…

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

Date published: Dec 10, 1984

Citations

106 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

People v. Vaughan

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The court's pretrial ruling pursuant to People v. Sandoval ( 34 N.Y.2d…

People v. Tyson

The trial court's pretrial Sandoval ruling, which permitted the People to cross-examine the defendant about…