¶1I concur in the result reached by the majority upon constraint of People v Rothschild (35 NY2d 355). However, I am in agreement with the dissent that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant concerning a prior criminal act, similar to that charged here, exceeded the bounds of proper cross-examination under People v Sandoval (34 NY2d 371). The nature of the interrogation evinced an intention by the prosecution to establish a predisposition by defendant to commit the precise crime here involved. This was plainly improper. (People v Zackowitz, 254 NY 192, 197.) Nevertheless, in view of the clear proof of guilt, I find the error not to be so prejudicial as to require reversal and remand for a new trial (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).
65 A.D.2d 364
People v. Bowen
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 21, 1978
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1978-12-21
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1986
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1978-12-21
View the full empirical analysis of this case →