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

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1004 (People v. Chatman) 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. 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1004, 590 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chatman-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack