From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 4, 1990
168 A.D.2d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

December 4, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Bernard Fried, J.


The court's Sandoval compromise, which permitted the prosecution to explore 11 of defendant's past convictions, was not an abuse of discretion. The trial court's ruling, suggested by defendant's request for a compromise, precluded any inquiry into the underlying facts of any of the convictions, and with the exception of one conviction of grand larceny, did not permit the prosecutor to elicit the nature of the charges. The court also permitted the prosecutor to question defendant on his use of aliases, but the court placed very specific, narrow restraints upon the prosecutor. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion (People v. Walker, 119 A.D.2d 521; People v. Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, affd. 46 N.Y.2d 882).

Concur — Ross, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 4, 1990
168 A.D.2d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES DAVIS, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 4, 1990

Citations

168 A.D.2d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
562 N.Y.S.2d 104

Citing Cases

People v. Wheeler [4th Dept 2001

We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel ( see, People v.…

People v. Carswell

The trial court ruled that the People could use the fact that defendant had 11 prior convictions to impeach…