From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Childs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 15, 2004
8 A.D.3d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3901.

Decided June 15, 2004.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered January 28, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Laura I. Appleman of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Benjamin Cheeks of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow, Catterson, JJ.


The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence concerning defendant's outstanding Maryland warrant. Since police credibility was the central issue in the case, this background material was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading to defendant's arrest and to explain the actions of the police ( see People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835; see also People v. Rojas, 97 N.Y.2d 32). The probative value of this evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect, which was minimized by the court's thorough limiting instructions.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Childs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 15, 2004
8 A.D.3d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Childs

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KIRK CHILDS…

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

Date published: Jun 15, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 272

Citing Cases

People v. Jesmer

fenses were joinable pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (b), which allows joinder of offenses based upon different…

People v. Jesmer

The court properly determined that the two offenses were joinable pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (b), which…