Legal Opinion
People v. Cornelius
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 22, 2011PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]). The convictions at issue were highly probative of credibility, and the court only permitted inquiry into a small portion of defendant’s extensive criminal record (see People v Coleman, 45 AD3d 432 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 763 [2008]).
The court’s Molineux ruling (People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]) was also a proper exercise of discretion. The evidence of uncharged crimes was probative of defendant’s…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- People v. DanielsonNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
- People v. . MolineuxNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- People v. PavaoNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. AntommarchiNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- People v. WalkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- People v. CorneliusNew York Court of Appeals · 2013
- People v. GardnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. GardnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012