People v. Diakite (Kadiata)

2024 NY Slip Op 51297(U)
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedSeptember 19, 2024
Docket570884/18
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 51297(U) (People v. Diakite (Kadiata)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Diakite (Kadiata), 2024 NY Slip Op 51297(U) (N.Y. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

People v Diakite (2024 NY Slip Op 51297(U)) [*1]
People v Diakite (Kadiata)
2024 NY Slip Op 51297(U)
Decided on September 19, 2024
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on September 19, 2024
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, Tisch, JJ.
570884/18

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Kadiata Diakite, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Laurence E. Busching, J.), rendered September 5, 2018, after a jury trial, convicting her of assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Laurence E. Busching, J.), rendered September 5, 2018, affirmed.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to introduce limited rebuttal testimony. The rebuttal testimony was a direct response to material facts placed in issue by defendant's own testimony related to her self defense claim (see People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, 343-346 [1982], cert denied 460 US 1047 [1983]). Even if the rebuttal testimony were to be viewed as including matters that should have been introduced on the People's direct case, the court had discretion to receive such evidence (CPL 260.30 [7]; see People v Cardelle, 104 AD3d 517 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1014 [2013]). In any event, defendant was not unduly prejudiced by the rebuttal testimony (see People v Rodgers, 187 AD3d 607 [2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 975 [2020]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 19, 2024

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

Related

People v. Harris
442 N.E.2d 1205 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)
People v. Cardelle
104 A.D.3d 517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 51297(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-diakite-kadiata-nyappterm-2024.