People v. Baum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baum

114 A.D.2d 505, 494 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53213

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 505 (People v. Baum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Baum, 114 A.D.2d 505, 494 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fuchsj J.), rendered June 22, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant argues that his constitutional right to confrontation was violated by the court’s refusal to strike the testimony of a prosecution witness who, upon cross-examination, asserted her privilege against self-incrimination. Any motive the witness had for testifying adversely to defendant was amply presented to the jury for its consideration, and thus further questioning would have been cumulative in nature (see, People v Clickner, 95 AD2d 925, 926). The defense had an adequate opportunity to present its theory that the witness was biased.

Defendant further contends that the court erred in receiving certain rebuttal testimony into evidence. In the light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the court’s ruling was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, cert denied — US —, 105 S Ct 327).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Weinstein, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fuchsj J.), rendered June 22, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant argues that his constitutional right to confrontation was violated by the court’s refusal to strike the testimony of a prosecution witness who, upon cross-examination, asserted her privilege against self-incrimination. Any motive the witness had for testifying adversely to defendant was amply presented to the jury for its consideration, and thus further questioning would have been cumulative in nature (see, People v Clickner, 95 AD2d 925, 926). The defense had an adequate opportunity to present its theory that the witness was biased.

Defendant further contends that the court erred in receiving certain rebuttal testimony into evidence. In the light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the court’s ruling was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, cert denied — US —, 105 S Ct 327).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Weinstein, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 505, 494 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baum-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack