People v. Chatman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chatman

186 A.D.2d 1004, 590 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11545

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 7, 1992·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court did not err in precluding cross-examination of the police witness concerning acts committed by the "Hit Squad,” of which the witness was a member. The extent of cross-examination of a witness upon matters immaterial to the issue is within the discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of its discretion may not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of plain abuse and injustice (People v Sorge, 301 NY 198, 201-202; La Beau v People, 34 NY 222, 230). Further, the court did not err in refusing to permit defendant access to confidential personnel records of the witness, inasmuch as defendant did not provide facts sufficient to establish that it was reasonably likely that the file would contain information bearing upon the credibility of the witness (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 550). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Boomer, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court did not err in precluding cross-examination of the police witness concerning acts committed by the "Hit Squad,” of which the witness was a member. The extent of cross-examination of a witness upon matters immaterial to the issue is within the discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of its discretion may not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of plain abuse and injustice (People v Sorge, 301 NY 198, 201-202; La Beau v People, 34 NY 222, 230). Further, the court did not err in refusing to permit defendant access to confidential personnel records of the witness, inasmuch as defendant did not provide facts sufficient to establish that it was reasonably likely that the file would contain information bearing upon the credibility of the witness (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 550). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Boomer, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

People v. Chatman, 186 A.D.2d 1004, 590 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

186 A.D.2d 1004 (People v. Chatman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related