Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Moore 92 N.Y.2d 823

← Cases

People v. Moore

92 N.Y.2d 823 Court N.Y. Decision date 1998-06-04 English

Contents

Majority

p. 823
[699 NE2d 415, 677 NYS2d 56]
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Anthony Moore, Respondent.
Decided June 4, 1998
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Pamela Tishman of counsel), for appellant.
p. 824
Amy Donner, New York City, and Daniel L. Greenberg for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The Appellate Division correctly concluded that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant about two prior crimes which the court’s earlier Sandoval ruling had previously disallowed (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 ). As the court below noted, defendant’s equivocal statements on cross-examination did not open the door to questions about those crimes, both of which involved knife-point robberies in Central Park (see, People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638 , 646). The exchange on which the People rely is as follows:

“prosecutor: [Did you tell the victim that the park c]ould be a dangerous place because people get robbed * * *?
“[defense counsel]: Objection
“court: Overruled
“defendant: I don’t know what takes place there.
“prosecutor: You told [the victim] this part of the park could be dangerous, right?
“defendant: No, I did not. I did not tell him this part of the park could be dangerous.
“prosecutor: What did you say?
“defendant: I said, this park can be dangerous.
“prosecutor: Means what just happened to you * * * is a dangerous thing, right?
“defendant: No.
“prosecutor: What did you mean?
“defendant: Anything else could happen.
“prosecutor: He could have been robbed at knife point?
“defendant: Who’s me to say” (emphasis supplied).
p. 825
The italicized comments are, as best, ambiguous and cannot fairly be construed, as the People urge, as assertions by defendant that he had not previously committed robberies in Central Park. Thus, they do not provide a justification for modifying the earlier Sandoval ruling and permitting cross-examination about defendant’s convictions based on factually similar crimes (cf., People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586 , 591; People v Fardan, supra).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cases cited