People v. Williams, 905 N.E.2d 605 (NY 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Williams, 905 N.E.2d 605 (NY 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Billups (ny, 2026-03-19)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Billups
NY · 2026 · confidence medium
As for his remaining challenges, the trial court's Sandoval ruling is "largely, if not completely a discretionary determination for the trial courts and fact-reviewing intermediate appellate courts, and . . . generally no further review by this Court is warranted" ( People v Williams , 12 NY3d 726, 727 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Harvey Weinstein
NY · 2024 · confidence medium
Even where “the trial court might have been more discriminating” (People v Williams, 12 NY3d 726, 727 [2009] [quotation marks and citation omitted]), the sheer number of prior bad acts and the fact that some were remote in time “are matters of substance that may properly be considered by the trial court but are not appropriate bases for this Court to second-guess the trial court’s conclusion” (Walker, 83 NY2d at 459 ). 3 The majority also appears to quietly endorse a new requirement that material admitted under Sandoval be limited to acts that amount to criminal conduct, arguing that…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Young
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
As this compromise appropriately balanced the interests at stake, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in this regard (see People v Smith, 18 NY3d at 594 ; People v Williams, 12 NY3d 726, 727 [2009]; People v Lemke, 58 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Young
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
As this compromise appropriately balanced the interests at stake, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in this regard (see People v Smith, 18 NY3d at 594 ; People v Williams, 12 NY3d 726, 727 [2009]; People v Lemke, 58 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2009]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Bloome
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
A Sandoval determination "rests largely within the reviewable discretion of the trial court, to be exercised in light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case before it" ( People v Hayes , 97 NY2d 203, 207 ; see People v Williams , 12 NY3d 726, 727 ; People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d at 375 ; People v Lowe , 189 AD3d 1461 , 1464).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Lowe
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
A Sandoval determination "rests largely within the reviewable discretion of the trial court, to be exercised in light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case before it" ( People v Hayes , 97 NY2d 203, 207-208 ; see People v Williams , 12 NY3d 726, 727 ; People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d at 375 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Cunny
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
A Sandoval determination "rests largely within the reviewable discretion of the trial court, to be exercised in light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case before it" ( People v Hayes, 97 NY2d at 207-208 ; see People v Williams, 12 NY3d 726, 727 ; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d at 375 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Herbin (Reginald)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Even were we to conclude that the trial court "might have been more discriminating" in its ruling ( People v Walker , 83 NY2dat 458; see also People v Williams , 12 NY3d 726, 727 [2009]), the court's determination to preclude reference to the underlying facts "reflects sensitivity to the particular prejudice that may result when a [factfinder] is made aware of the fact that the defendant has previously committed crimes that are similar to the charged crime" ( People v Walker , 83 NY2d at 459 ; see e.g.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Riley Williams, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 11, 2009.
905 N.E.2d 605
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York City, and Jonathan Garvin for appellant., Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Maria Park and Leonard Jdblove of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum .

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We have repeatedly held that the extent to which the prosecution may use prior convictions to impeach a defendant’s testimony “is ‘largely, if not completely’ a discretionary determination for the trial courts and fact-reviewing intermediate appellate courts, and that generally no further review by this Court is warranted” (People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 274 [1990], quoting People v Shields, 46 NY2d 764, 765 [1978]). Here, Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) permitted the People to elicit from the defendant that he had one felony conviction and 45 misdemeanor convictions, but not to go into the underlying facts or circumstances of the convictions. We conclude here, as we did in People v Walker (83 NY2d 455, 458 [1994]), that “the trial court might have been more discriminating,” but that there is “no legal reason to upset the court’s exercise of its discretion.”

Acting Chief Judge Ciparick and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.