People v. Williams
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Herbin (Reginald) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Scott-Manson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- People v. Billups (N.Y. 2026)
- The People v. Harvey Weinstein (N.Y. 2024)
- People v. Hill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Chihuahua v. Birchwood Estates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- People v. Bloome (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- People v. Lowe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Bedard (Nadia) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- People v. Cunny (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Anaka (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Ragland (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- People v. Young (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- People v. Young (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- People v. Turner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- People v. Turner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- People v. Gonzalez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Harris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum .
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
We have repeatedly held that the extent to which the prosecution may use prior convictions to impeach a defendant’s testimony “is ‘largely, if not completely’ a discretionary determination for the trial courts and fact-reviewing intermediate appellate courts, and that generally no further review by this Court is warranted” (People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 274 [1990], quoting People v Shields, 46 NY2d 764, 765 [1978]). Here, Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) permitted the People to elicit from the defendant that he had one felony conviction and 45 misdemeanor convictions, but not to go into the underlying facts or circumstances of the convictions. We conclude here, as we did in People v Walker (83 NY2d 455, 458 [1994]), that “the trial court might have been more discriminating,” but that there is “no legal reason to upset the court’s exercise of its discretion.”
Acting Chief Judge Ciparick and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.