PEOPLE v. MARTIN (2001)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael MARTIN, Appellant.

Decided: July 23, 2001

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, NANCY E. SMITH and THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Barbara Lerner of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Michael Gore of counsel), and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jennifer L. Lallite of counsel), for respondent (one brief filed).

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.), rendered March 8, 1999, convicting him of bail jumping in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly permitted the prosecution to inquire into the defendant's court appearances on prior unrelated cases to rebut the defendant's assertion, in defense to the charge of bail jumping, that he was generally unfamiliar with court procedure (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 248, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; People v. Harris, 57 N.Y.2d 335, 345, 456 N.Y.S.2d 694, 442 N.E.2d 1205, cert. denied 460 U.S. 1047, 103 S.Ct. 1448, 75 L.Ed.2d 803). The relevance of this rebuttal evidence far outweighed any possible prejudice which might have resulted (see, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 359-360, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network