People v. Haugh

May 31, 2011
Versions:84 A.D.3d 1401
923 N.Y.S.2d 891

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court‘s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) properly balanced the probative value of the evidence of the defendant‘s criminal background and the possible prejudice to him (see People v Harris, 74 AD3d 984 [2010]; People v Ward, 65 AD3d 1172, 1173 [2009]; People v Hayes, 44 AD3d 683 [2007]). The fact that the defendant‘s previous conviction took place 10 years earlier does not, by itself, warrant its preclusion for impeachment purposes (see People v White, 60 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2009]; People v Fotiou, 39 AD3d 877, 878 [2007]).

The defendant‘s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Clemmons, 83 AD3d 859 [2011]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Serrano, 74 AD3d 1104, 1105-1106 [2010]; Matter of Sean R., 33 AD3d 925 [2006]; People v Samwell, 287 AD2d 663 [2001]; People v Smalls, 282 AD2d 694, 695 [2001]). Moreover, upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.