From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 22, 1991
172 A.D.2d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 22, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The only issue raised on appeal concerns the court's Sandoval ruling. We conclude that the court's ruling was not an improvident exercise of its discretion, as the defendant failed to establish that the prejudicial effect of admitting evidence of some of his past illegal activities outweighed its probative value (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Boseman, 161 A.D.2d 601). The court precluded, as unduly prejudicial, any inquiry into a youthful offender adjudication which involved possession of a weapon and inquiry into the underlying facts of a conviction involving the sale of narcotics. The court's decision to permit inquiry into the underlying facts, but not the disposition, of a second youthful offender adjudication was proper (see, People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, cert denied 423 U.S. 861; People v. Colon, 161 A.D.2d 782). Since the facts underlying the youthful offender adjudication involved a larceny, those facts were probative of the defendant's credibility (see, People v. Boseman, supra; People v. Branch, 155 A.D.2d 475). Lawrence, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Dixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 22, 1991
172 A.D.2d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Dixon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PATRICK DIXON, Also…

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

Date published: Apr 22, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
569 N.Y.S.2d 146

Citing Cases

People v. Preyer

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court permissibly exercised its discretion in ruling…

People v. Cooke

The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in its Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34…