People v. Nichols, 302 A.D.2d 953 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Nichols, 302 A.D.2d 953 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Williams (nyappdiv, 2012-09-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We reject defendant’s contention that County Court failed to exercise its discretion in its Sandoval ruling and that, in the event that the court in fact exercised its discretion, the court abused its discretion. “ ‘The extent to which prior convictions bear on the issue of a defendant’s credibility is a question entrusted to the sound discretion of the court, reviewable only for clear abuse of discretion’ ” (People v Nichols, 302 AD2d 953, 953 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 657 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We reject defendant’s contention that County Court failed to exercise its discretion in its Sandoval ruling and that, in the event that the court in fact exercised its discretion, the court abused its discretion. “ ‘The extent to which prior convictions bear on the issue of a defendant’s credibility is a question entrusted to the sound discretion of the court, reviewable only for clear abuse of discretion’ ” (People v Nichols, 302 AD2d 953, 953 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 657 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Tolliver
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In any event, the court’s Sandoval ruling did not constitute a “ ‘clear abuse of discretion’ ” war ranting reversal (People v Nichols, 302 AD2d 953, 953 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 657 [2003]; see People v Reid, 34 AD3d 1273 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 884 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Smikle
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
We further conclude that the court’s Sandoval ruling did not constitute a “ ‘clear abuse of discretion,’ ” warranting reversal (People v Nichols, 302 AD2d 953, 953 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 657 [2003]; see People v Reid, 34 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 884 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Poole
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
In any event, we reject that contention. “ ‘The extent to which prior convictions bear on the issue of a defendant’s credibility is a question entrusted to the sound discretion of the court, reviewable only for clear abuse of discretion’ ” (People v Nichols, 302 AD2d 953, 953 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 657 [2003]; see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 207-208 [2002]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Arguinzoni
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
Despite the similarity between the prior conviction and the instant charges, “[p]roof of willingness to steal has been specifically recognized as very material proof of lack of credibility . . . and crimes of individual dishonesty should usually be admitted on trial of another similar charge, notwithstanding the risk of possible prejudice, because the very issue on which the offer is made is that of the veracity of the defendant as a witness in the case” (People v Freeney, 291 AD2d 913, 914 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 637 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Nichols, 302 A…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Reid
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
With respect to the contention of defendant that the court abused its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine him regarding factually similar convictions, we note that “[t]he extent to which prior convictions bear on the issue of a defendant’s credibility is a question entrusted to the sound discretion of the court, reviewable only for clear abuse of discretion” (People v Meli, 142 AD2d 938, 939 [1988], lv denied 72 NY2d 921 [1988]; see People v Nichols, 302 AD2d 953 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 657 [2003]; see generally People v Parris, 30 AD3d 1108 [2006]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Alston
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
Crimes involving dishonesty “will usually have a very material relevance, whenever committed” (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 377 [1974]; see People v Nichols, 302 AD2d 953 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 657 [2003]).
discussed Cited "see" Donahue v. Quikrete Companies
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
“Commission of perjury or other crimes or acts of individual dishonesty, or untrustworthiness (e.g., offenses involving theft or fraud, bribery, or acts of deceit, cheating, breach of trust) will usually have a very material relevance, whenever committed” (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 377 [1974] [emphasis added]; see People v Nichols, 302 AD2d 953 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 657 [2003]; People v Coif, 286 AD2d 888, 889 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 655 [2001]).
The People of the State of New York
v.
Carl R. Nichols, Jr.
Appeal No. 1.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 7, 2003.
302 A.D.2d 953
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of Steuben County Court (Furfure, J.), entered October 30, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, attempted sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, former 130.65 [1]), attempted sexual abuse in the second degree (§§ 110.00, former 130.60 [2]), and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]), defendant contends that County Court’s Sandoval ruling constituted an abuse of discretion. We reject that contention. “The extent to which prior convictions bear on the issue of a defendant’s credibility is a question entrusted to the sound discretion of the court, reviewable only for clear abuse of discretion” (People v Meli, 142 AD2d 938, 939). Here, the court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the People to question defendant concerning his prior convictions of petit larceny, violation of probation, and auto stripping. “Commission of peijury or other crimes or acts of individual dishonesty, or untrustworthiness (e.g., offenses involving theft or fraud, bribery, or acts of deceit, cheating, breach of trust) will usually have a very material relevance, whenever committed” (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 377; see also People v Colf, 286 AD2d 888, 889-890, lv denied 97 NY2d 655).

Defendant further contends that the testimony of a police officer that he had dealt with defendant “several times in my career” was so prejudicial as to require a new trial. The court sustained defendant’s objection to that testimony and gave a curative instruction, however, and “the absence of any further request for relief [by defendant] compels the conclusion that the alleged error was corrected to the defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Reid, 140 AD2d 639, 641, lv denied 72 NY2d 961). The court also properly permitted friends of the victim to testify that, immediately after the encounter with defendant, she complained to them about what he had done. “[W]itnesses who have heard a victim’s prompt complaint may testify to the complaint” (People v Beaulieu, 184 AD2d 1061, 1061), and here the testimony was properly “limited to the fact of the complaint and [did] not include details of the incident as related by the victim” (id. at 1061-1062).

[*954] Also contrary to defendant’s contentions, the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The 13-year-old victim testified that, while she was at defendant’s house visiting defendant’s 13-year-old brother and another friend, defendant took her into his bedroom, where he proceeded to lie on top of her and attempted to unbutton her shorts. The victim testified that she had to fight defendant off. The victim then told defendant’s brother and her friend what defendant had dope, which was within minutes of the encounter. Defendant offered an alibi defense, which the jury was entitled to disregard. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.