People v. Townsend, 70 A.D.3d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Townsend, 70 A.D.3d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Ceara (nyappdiv, 2015-11-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ceara
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The County Court’s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) constituted a proper exercise of its discretion, and did not deprive the defendant of the right to testify *874 on his own behalf (see People v Biear, 119 AD3d 599, 600 [2014]; People v Townsend, 70 AD3d 982, 982 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tripp v. Williams (2×)
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2013 · confidence medium
(See id.) As an alternative to precluding all use of a criminal conviction for impeachment, the trial court might adopt a “Sandoval compromise” (see People v Brown, 101 AD3d 895, 896 [2d Dept 2012]), i.e., “limit inquiry to the mere fact that there has been a prior conviction; . . . limit inquiry to the existence and nature of the prior conviction; or . . . permit examination into the facts and circumstances underlying the prior conviction.” (See People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 208 [2002]; People v Townsend, 70 AD3d 982, 982 [2d Dept 2010]; People v Carrasquillo, 204 AD2d 735, 735 [2d Dep…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ortiz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In fashioning its Sandoval ruling, the Supreme Court “struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of the defendant’s prior crimes and the possible prejudice to the defendant” (People v Townsend, 70 AD3d 982, 982 [2010]; see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Watts
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
In fashioning its Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]), the Supreme Court “struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of the defendant’s prior crimes and the possible prejudice to the defendant” (People v Townsend, 70 AD3d 982, 982 [2010]; see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gidron
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
In fashioning its Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]), the trial court “struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of the defendant’s prior crimes and the possible prejudice to the defendant” (People v Townsend, 70 AD3d 982, 982 [2010]; see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jean-Louis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, in fashioning its Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]), the trial court “struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of the defendant’s prior crimes and the possible prejudice to the defendant” (People v Townsend, 70 AD3d 982, 982 [2010]; see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Allan Townsend
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 16, 2010.
70 A.D.3d 982
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered September 25, 2007, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a resentence of the same court imposed October 9, 2007.

Ordered that the judgment and the resentence are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court’s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of the defendant’s prior crimes and the possible prejudice to the defendant (see People v Springer, 13 AD3d 657, 658 [2004]). The fact that several of the defendant’s convictions were approximately 20 years old does not, in and of itself, require the preclusion of those convictions for purposes of impeachment (see People v Springer, 13 AD3d at 658). Similarly, inquiry into the defendant’s drug-related offenses need not be precluded on the basis of his alleged drug addiction (see People v Hall, 99 AD2d 843 [1984]). The court precluded inquiry into the underlying facts of those prior offenses which involved the use of a weapon, and therefore were most prejudicial to the defendant. The defendant’s previous convictions were probative in evaluating his credibility, and thus the court’s Sandoval ruling was proper (see People v Hines, 3 AD3d 580 [2004]; People v Williams, 292 AD2d 474, 475 [2002]; People v Clarke, 265 AD2d 566 [1999]).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair[*983] trial by the Supreme Court’s examination of witnesses and other conduct during trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v DeNormand, 1 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2003]; People v Manigault, 297 AD2d 754 [2002]; People v Orsini, 246 AD2d 674 [1998]; People v Gonzalez, 183 AD2d 783 [1992]) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v DeNormand, 1 AD3d at 1048; People v Todd, 306 AD2d 504 [2003]; People v Collado, 277 AD2d 393 [2000]; People v Hartzog, 263 AD2d 492 [1999]). Santucci, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.