Opinion · Nylaw New York
PEOPLE v. GENT, 158 A.D.2d 714 [2d Dept 1990]
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF N.Y., Respondent, v. WARDIE GENT, Appellant., 158 A.D.2d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 1990)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Nylaw New York
- Jurisdiction
- Nylaw
- Date
- 1990-02-26
- Topic
- general
PEOPLE v. GENT, 158 A.D.2d 714 [2d Dept 1990] THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WARDIE GENT, Appellant.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. February 26, 1990 Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Belfi, J.). Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed PEOPLE v. GENT, 158 A.D.2d 714 [2d Dept 1990]. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
PEOPLE v. GENT,158 A.D.2d 714[2d Dept 1990]
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WARDIE GENT, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
February 26, 1990
In itsSandovalruling(see, People v Sandoval,34 N.Y.2d 371), the trial court permitted inquiry into whether the defendant had ever been convicted of a felony and of petit larceny, but precluded cross-examination into two youthful offender adjudications. With regard to the felony, a burglary conviction, the court further ruled that inquiry into the underlying facts of the crime would not be permitted.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find no error in the court'sSandovalcompromise. The court, in a proper exercise of discretion, balanced the probative worth of permitting limited inquiry into the defendant's criminal past against the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant.
No other issues have been raised on appeal. Kooper, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.