From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 2, 1986
121 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

June 2, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

After a favorable pretrial ruling on his Sandoval motion, the defendant took the witness stand and testified that while in the Marine Corps, serving in Vietnam, he received the following awards and citations: National Defense Campaign Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, Good Conduct Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and two Purple Hearts. Subsequently, at a side bar, the trial court ruled that the defendant had put his character in issue and permitted the People to inquire whether the defendant had ever been convicted of a crime. The prosecutor was not permitted to inquire into the underlying facts of the crime nor even that it constituted a felony.

The defendant contends that the ruling was in error as he had not placed his character in issue. We can conceive of no purpose for the defendant's testimony other than to establish circumstantial evidence of good character. Accordingly, we find that the court properly permitted the People, in rebuttal, to establish his prior conviction (see, Richardson, Evidence § 152 [Prince 10th ed]). Furthermore, the defendant was not entitled to a pretrial ruling in this regard. Addressing the procedural and substantive rights of a defendant to obtain a prospective ruling as to the permissible scope of his cross-examination, the Court of Appeals stated: "We do not refer here to the extent to which independent, direct proof of previous criminal, vicious or immoral acts on the part of the defendant may be admissible * * * to rebut character evidence introduced by the defendant * * * Such [issue is] distinct and involve[s] considerations and factors with which we are not now concerned" (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 373, n 1). In addition, we find that the probative value of this rebuttal evidence outweighed any prejudice accruing to the defendant.

The defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 2, 1986
121 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CEDRIC JONES, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 2, 1986

Citations

121 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Morehouse

In our view, no Sandoval ruling was required because the prosecution sought to introduce the alleged prior…

People v. Jones

Decided December 22, 1986 Appeal from (2d dept: 121 A.D.2d 398) APPEALS DISMISSED PURSUANT TO RULES OF…