Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ramon CRUZADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered May 16, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 1/2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court's Sandoval ruling, permitting questioning with respect to defendant's having previously been convicted of assault in the first degree, but precluding the People from eliciting the underlying facts of defendant's crime or sentence, was an appropriate exercise of discretion (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413). Further, the court properly modified its pretrial Sandoval ruling by allowing the prosecutor limited inquiry into the circumstances of that arrest when defendant opened the door by his misleading testimony that he had voluntarily surrendered to authorities after the assault (see, People v. Fardan, 82 N.Y.2d 638, 646, 607 N.Y.S.2d 220, 628 N.E.2d 41).
Finally, we reject defendant's argument that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss the count of the indictment charging robbery in the second degree. Defendant's claim that there was a complete absence of any evidence that a robbery was completed, to wit, that any property was taken, is not supported by the record. Moreover, defendant was acquitted of the count of robbery in the second degree, and convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted robbery in the second degree, and his claim of prejudice arising from the court's submission of the robbery count to the jury is based purely on speculation concerning the manner in which the jury deliberated (see, People v. Brown, 83 N.Y.2d 791, 794, 610 N.Y.S.2d 956, 632 N.E.2d 1279).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 06, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)