People v. Clemons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clemons

187 A.D.2d 966, 592 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13977

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 966 (People v. Clemons) 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. Clemons, 187 A.D.2d 966, 592 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting defendant’s cross-examination of the complainant. Defendant sought to examine the witness on a collateral matter — the filing of two complaints regarding her termination from employment. The trial court conducted an in camera review of the documents and concluded that they were not contradictory. There is no reason to disturb the trial court’s exercise of discretion.

We conclude, upon reviewing the record, that the jury verdict is not contrary to the weight of evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), and that the sentence imposed is not harsh or excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting defendant’s cross-examination of the complainant. Defendant sought to examine the witness on a collateral matter — the filing of two complaints regarding her termination from employment. The trial court conducted an in camera review of the documents and concluded that they were not contradictory. There is no reason to disturb the trial court’s exercise of discretion.

We conclude, upon reviewing the record, that the jury verdict is not contrary to the weight of evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), and that the sentence imposed is not harsh or excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 966, 592 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clemons-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack