Legal Opinion
People v. Zillinger
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 9, 1992PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The Sandoval ruling, permitting the People limited inquiry into defendant’s 18, 14 and 12 year-old convictions, if he took the stand, was not an abuse of discretion, since defendant had been incarcerated during that period for approximately 13 years, and the Sandoval compromise utilized by the court prohibited inquiry into the underlying facts or even mention of the specific crimes committed (People v Ortiz, 156 AD2d 197, 198, lv denied 76 NY2d 740; People v Cuadrado, 171 AD2d 556). "The age of the conviction in and of itself does not preclude the prosecutor from using it to cross examine the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. OrtizAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- People v. PerezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- People v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- People v. StringfellowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- People v. CuadradoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. TeenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- People v. SmallsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- People v. CastroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- People v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- People v. NonniAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.