Legal Opinion

People v. Panepinto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 11, 1990PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the second degree and other related crimes, defendant’s sole argument is that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial by the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s references to uncharged crimes in an attempt to portray defendant as a professional burglar. It is, of course, patently improper to introduce evidence of uncharged crimes if the only purpose is to show bad character or a defendant’s propensity to commit crime (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. People v. . MolineuxNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  2. People v. AlvinoNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. People v. VentimigliaNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  4. People v. AllweissNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
  5. People v. BergNew York Court of Appeals · 1983

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Roldan v. ArtuzDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
  2. People v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  3. People v. WoodsideAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API