People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brown

25 A.D.2d 611, 267 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4884

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 611 (People v. Brown) 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. Brown, 25 A.D.2d 611, 267 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In the absence of “plain abuse and injustice” (La Beau v. People, 34 N. Y. 223, 230) this court will not as a basis for reversal substitute its judgment for that of the Tidal Judge in the exercise of discretionary control of the scope and extent of cross-examination. While we are satisfied that the court should have permitted defendant’s counsel greater latitude in his cross-examination of the People’s witness Bennefield as to prior convictions and should have permitted on cross-examination of Mrs. Bennefield introduction in evidence of a petition in Family Court signed by her containing alleged contradictory statements, we do not find that such rulings by the Trial Judge or any other matters in the conduct of the trial affected defendant’s substantial rights so as to require a new trial. (Code Crim. Pro. § 542.) (Appeal from judgment of Erie [612]*612County Court convicting defendant of assault third degree.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Del Veeehio and Marsh, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In the absence of “plain abuse and injustice” (La Beau v. People, 34 N. Y. 223, 230) this court will not as a basis for reversal substitute its judgment for that of the Tidal Judge in the exercise of discretionary control of the scope and extent of cross-examination. While we are satisfied that the court should have permitted defendant’s counsel greater latitude in his cross-examination of the People’s witness Bennefield as to prior convictions and should have permitted on cross-examination of Mrs. Bennefield introduction in evidence of a petition in Family Court signed by her containing alleged contradictory statements, we do not find that such rulings by the Trial Judge or any other matters in the conduct of the trial affected defendant’s substantial rights so as to require a new trial. (Code Crim. Pro. § 542.) (Appeal from judgment of Erie [612]*612County Court convicting defendant of assault third degree.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Del Veeehio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 611, 267 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brown-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack