From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 20, 1991
173 A.D.2d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

May 20, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention to the contrary notwithstanding, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when ruling that the prosecutor could cross-examine the defendant about the facts underlying his prior convictions for theft-related offenses rather than restricting inquiry to the mere fact of their existence. Those convictions, which were dissimilar to the crimes for which the defendant was then being tried, were material and relevant on the issue of the defendant's credibility (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377), and the Supreme Court was not obliged to make use of the "Sandoval Compromise" (see, People v Padilla, 123 A.D.2d 364; People v Hicks, 88 A.D.2d 519; see also, People v Bearthea, 171 A.D.2d 751; People v Hamilton, 171 A.D.2d 882). Moreover, the sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 20, 1991
173 A.D.2d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STANLEY DAVIS…

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

Date published: May 20, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
570 N.Y.S.2d 220

Citing Cases

People v. Alston

Defendant failed to object to the court's ultimate Sandoval ruling, and thus failed to preserve his…

People v. Wright

In any event, we note that the prosecutor reported that he had searched for the Data Sheet but had been…