People v. Scott-Manson - Criminal Conviction Appeal

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 17th, 2026

Detected March 18th, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York modified a judgment against Jeremy Scott-Manson, vacating his sentence and remanding for resentencing. The court affirmed his conviction for attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, has modified a judgment against defendant Jeremy Scott-Manson. The court vacated the defendant's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, while otherwise affirming his conviction for attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The decision addressed the defendant's argument regarding the court's Sandoval ruling, finding it to be a proper exercise of discretion concerning the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment purposes.

This ruling primarily impacts the legal proceedings for the specific defendant, Jeremy Scott-Manson, by requiring a resentencing. For legal professionals and compliance officers involved in criminal appeals in New York, this case serves as a reminder of the standards for Sandoval rulings and the potential for appellate modification of sentences. No immediate compliance actions are required for regulated entities outside of this specific case.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

People v. Scott-Manson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01469
Docket Number: Ind. No. 2032/21; Appeal No. 6101; Case No. 2022-04436
Opinion
Authorities (6)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

People v Scott-Manson (2026 NY Slip Op 01469)
| People v Scott-Manson |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01469 |
| Decided on March 17, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |

Decided and Entered: March 17, 2026
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Shulman, Chan, Hagler, JJ.
Ind. No. 2032/21|Appeal No. 6101|Case No. 2022-04436|

*[1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

Jeremy Scott-Manson, Defendant-Appellant.**

Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Mary-Kathryn Smith of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Malancha Chanda of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (April A. Newbauer, J.), rendered September 1, 2022, convicting defendant, following a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of six years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating defendant's sentence and remanding for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed.

The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Williams, 12 NY3d 726 [2009]; People v Harris, 93 AD3d 612, 613 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 19 NY3d 1102 [2012]). The court's ruling authorizing the prosecutor to elicit, if defendant testified, that he was convicted of burglary in the third degree and attempted strangulation in the second degree, without inquiring into the underlying facts, and to ask him about one of his six misdemeanor convictions without touching on the nature of the offense, was a fair Sandoval determination. Contrary to defendant's argument, attempted strangulation is an offense that bears on credibility in that it reveals "a willingness or disposition on the part of . . . defendant voluntarily to place the advancement of his individual self-interest ahead of principle or the interests of society" (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 377 [1974]). In any event, any error would be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request for a missing witness charge. Defendant engaged in a brutal and sustained beating of his girlfriend, kicking her in the face and head more than 10 times as she lay helpless in the street. The complainant typifies a recalcitrant domestic violence victim who refuses to cooperate in a prosecution of her abuser out of loyalty, fear, or financial or emotional dependence and so is not in the control of the People (see People v Hernandez, 256 AD2d 18, 19 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 874 [1999]).

The evidence that defendant's sneaker, in the manner in which it was used, was a dangerous instrument was legally sufficient, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence in this regard (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]; People Lev, 33 AD3d 362, 362 [1st Dept 2006]; see also People v Baque, 43 NY3d 26, 29-30 [2024]).

The court inadvertently neglected to arraign defendant on the predicate felony statement. The People agree that his sentence must therefore be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing. This renders defendant's argument that the sentence imposed is excessive academic (see CPL 400.21).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 17, 2026