People v. McClam
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it issued its Sandoval ruling permitting the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant, should he choose to testify, with respect to several prior convictions which involved offenses similar in nature to the present offense, including the underlying facts of two of them. Questions concerning other crimes are not automatically precluded simply because the crimes to be inquired about are similar to the crimes charged (see, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Rahman, 46 NY2d 882).…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- People v. ContesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. . GaimariNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- People v. GarafoloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
- People v. PavaoNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. RahmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. SokolovAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- People v. HegdalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- People v. HutchinsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- People v. McBrideAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- People v. CallistroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.