People v. Goris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Goris

305 A.D.2d 178, 758 N.Y.S.2d 65, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5240

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

DecidedMay 8, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 178 (People v. Goris) 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. Goris, 305 A.D.2d 178, 758 N.Y.S.2d 65, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered May 6, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal [179]*179sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of V-h to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The People made a sufficient showing to warrant the exclusion of defendant’s girlfriend during the undercover officer’s testimony, as well as the use of a screening procedure to ascertain the identities and residences of unnamed additional family members (see Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39 [1984]). Defendant’s girlfriend lived at the precise location of the sale, and the undercover officer regularly made undercover purchases in that area, where he was involved in a long-term investigation in which he was still looking for a subject. Accordingly, defendant’s girlfriend, as well as other family members residing nearby, posed a particularized threat to the officer’s safety and effectiveness (see People v Blake, 284 AD2d 339 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 916 [2001]). The screening procedure imposed as to unnamed family members, none of whom appeared at any time during the trial, was an appropriate limited restriction that did not actually exclude anyone (see People v Millan, 301 AD2d 407 [2003]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits on defendant’s cross-examination of police witnesses. The court properly precluded a line of inquiry that was marginally relevant at best and invited speculation. Defendant received a full opportunity to attack the officers’ credibility and was not deprived of his right to confront witnesses and present a defense (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Rosenberger and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered May 6, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal [179]*179sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of V-h to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The People made a sufficient showing to warrant the exclusion of defendant’s girlfriend during the undercover officer’s testimony, as well as the use of a screening procedure to ascertain the identities and residences of unnamed additional family members (see Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39 [1984]). Defendant’s girlfriend lived at the precise location of the sale, and the undercover officer regularly made undercover purchases in that area, where he was involved in a long-term investigation in which he was still looking for a subject. Accordingly, defendant’s girlfriend, as well as other family members residing nearby, posed a particularized threat to the officer’s safety and effectiveness (see People v Blake, 284 AD2d 339 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 916 [2001]). The screening procedure imposed as to unnamed family members, none of whom appeared at any time during the trial, was an appropriate limited restriction that did not actually exclude anyone (see People v Millan, 301 AD2d 407 [2003]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits on defendant’s cross-examination of police witnesses. The court properly precluded a line of inquiry that was marginally relevant at best and invited speculation. Defendant received a full opportunity to attack the officers’ credibility and was not deprived of his right to confront witnesses and present a defense (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Rosenberger and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 178, 758 N.Y.S.2d 65, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goris-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack