Final Assignment - Sentencing

ASSIGNMENT #11 The hearing court denied both of Randolph’s suppression motions. It held that the complainant’s photo identification was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause. It further held that the lineup identification was not unduly suggestive since any physical differences between Randolph and the fillers were minimal and did not draw any undue attention to him. We are nearing the beginning of trial. We now turn our attention to the final pretrial hearing. Except in specific cases involving specific circumstances (not present in your case), a prosecutor may not use a defendant’s criminal history as affirmative evidence of that person’s guilt. This prevents a jury from convicting an individual on a propensity theory. Prosecutors can, however, use a defendant’s criminal history to impeach a defendant’s credibility in the event he takes the stand at trial. This history is used as impeachment material to attack the defendant’s credibility. In other words, since the defendant has previously broken the law and thus has put his interests above that of society, the jury should not believe the defendant’s testimony. In order to assess the proper use of a defendant’s criminal history in the event that the defendant takes the witness stand, the court conducts a pretrial hearing where the judge weighs the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial impact. In essence, this is a balancing test and the court usually reaches a compromise decision satisfying neither party. You are now at the Sandoval hearing in Randolph’s case. This hearing comes from People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371 (1974). You must read that decision to complete this assignment. You are free to further research how Sandoval has been subsequently applied in New York. For your purposes, I would limit your research to subsequent NY Court of Appeals cases.

This is Randolph’s record: 1997 – Hindering prosecution – 9 months

1997 – Attempted grand larceny – Conditional discharge 1998 – Petit larceny – 6 months 1999 – Petit Larceny – 6 months 1999 – Criminal possession of stolen property – Conditional discharge 2000 – Petit larceny – 4 months 2001 – Petit larceny – Conditional discharge 2005 – Grand larceny – 3 years’ probation (Felony conviction) 2010 – Criminal possession of stolen property – Conditional discharge 2013 – Grand larceny – 2 to 4 years (Felony conviction) 2014 – Grand larceny – 18 months to 3 years (Felony conviction) 2016 – Grand larceny – 18 months to 3 years (Felony conviction)

As the prosecutor, you must now determine how much of Randolph’s record you want to use against him if he takes the witness stand. Into how much detail do you believe that you should be allowed to delve into this record? Set forth your persuasive arguments to the court justifying the conclusions that you reached.