People v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Davis

17 A.D.3d 245, 793 N.Y.S.2d 45, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4198

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

DecidedApril 21, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 245 (People v. Davis) 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. Davis, 17 A.D.3d 245, 793 N.Y.S.2d 45, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Feter J. Benitez, J.), rendered March 4, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school [246]*246grounds and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel’s request to cross-examine an undercover officer regarding a statement he made to the prosecutor during a recess in which the officer expressed his mistaken belief that one of the trial jurors had served on a prior case in which the officer had testified. Accordingly, the court’s ruling imposed a reasonable limitation on cross-examination that did not deprive defendant of his right to confront witnesses or present a defense (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]).

The court properly permitted a second undercover officer involved in ongoing investigations to be identified only by her shield number, since concerns for her safety warranted maintaining her anonymity (see People v Solares, 309 AD2d 502 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 581 [2003]). The court’s determination was made in accordance with the procedural requirements set forth in People v Waver (3 NY3d 748, 750 [2004]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Feter J. Benitez, J.), rendered March 4, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school [246]*246grounds and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel’s request to cross-examine an undercover officer regarding a statement he made to the prosecutor during a recess in which the officer expressed his mistaken belief that one of the trial jurors had served on a prior case in which the officer had testified. Accordingly, the court’s ruling imposed a reasonable limitation on cross-examination that did not deprive defendant of his right to confront witnesses or present a defense (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]).

The court properly permitted a second undercover officer involved in ongoing investigations to be identified only by her shield number, since concerns for her safety warranted maintaining her anonymity (see People v Solares, 309 AD2d 502 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 581 [2003]). The court’s determination was made in accordance with the procedural requirements set forth in People v Waver (3 NY3d 748, 750 [2004]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 245, 793 N.Y.S.2d 45, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-davis-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack