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. Kevin Cooper, Defendant-Appellant.
_
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered November 19, 2009, as amended December 8, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to a term of 6 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion when, prior to defendant taking the stand, it modified its original Sandoval ruling in light of its further evaluation of the credibility issues to be raised by defendant's proposed testimony asserting an agency defense (see People v. Ramos, 255 A.D.2d 203 [1998], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 856 [1999] ). While we agree with defendant that the underlying facts of his prior conviction for fraudulent accosting, in which he sold imitation narcotics to an undercover officer, were not admissible under a Molineux theory to rebut defendant's agency defense, they were nevertheless admissible to impeach his credibility. The modified ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203 [2002] ). Although the present case also involved an undercover sale, the facts of the fraudulent accosting case were highly probative of defendant's credibility and were not unduly prejudicial. Moreover, defendant's testimony that he did not like to “cheat people” enhanced the impeachment value of the facts underlying his fraudulent accosting conviction.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 3719
Decided: November 30, 2010
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)