People v. Calle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Calle

280 A.D.2d 371, 720 N.Y.S.2d 483, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1567

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 371 (People v. Calle) 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. Calle, 280 A.D.2d 371, 720 N.Y.S.2d 483, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered August 28, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to a term of 3 years probation and a term of intermittent imprisonment of 4 weekends, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion by imposing reasonable limits upon defendant’s cross-examination of the Special Commissioner’s investigator as to collateral issues concerning steps taken or not taken in the investigation of this school incident (see, People v Melcherts, 225 AD2d 357, lv denied 88 NY2d 881; People v Martinez, 214 AD2d 429, lv denied 86 NY2d 738).

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to permit defendant to play the tape recording of a Spanish-language conversation during his cross-examination of a .People’s witness who had prepared an English transcript of the tape. Defendant did not establish the need to play the tape before the jury in order to cross-examine the People’s translator (see, People v Lanfronco, 176 AD2d 201, lv denied 79 NY2d 828). We further note that there was no substantial question as to the audibility of the tape or the accuracy of the English transcript, which was received in evidence. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered August 28, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to a term of 3 years probation and a term of intermittent imprisonment of 4 weekends, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion by imposing reasonable limits upon defendant’s cross-examination of the Special Commissioner’s investigator as to collateral issues concerning steps taken or not taken in the investigation of this school incident (see, People v Melcherts, 225 AD2d 357, lv denied 88 NY2d 881; People v Martinez, 214 AD2d 429, lv denied 86 NY2d 738).

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to permit defendant to play the tape recording of a Spanish-language conversation during his cross-examination of a .People’s witness who had prepared an English transcript of the tape. Defendant did not establish the need to play the tape before the jury in order to cross-examine the People’s translator (see, People v Lanfronco, 176 AD2d 201, lv denied 79 NY2d 828). We further note that there was no substantial question as to the audibility of the tape or the accuracy of the English transcript, which was received in evidence. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 371, 720 N.Y.S.2d 483, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-calle-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack