People v. Gosso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gosso

41 A.D.3d 206, 838 N.Y.S.2d 58

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

DecidedJune 14, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 206 (People v. Gosso) 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. Gosso, 41 A.D.3d 206, 838 N.Y.S.2d 58 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[207]*207Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), rendered June 8, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly granted defendant’s request to proceed pro se for part of the cross-examination of the main undercover officer. The court conducted a proper inquiry in which it fully explained to defendant the dangers of self-representation and the importance of using a trained lawyer, and the record establishes that defendant, who had an extensive criminal record and claimed to have a college degree, had the experience and intelligence to understand the court’s warnings and knowingly waive his right to counsel (see People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579, 581 [2004]). Furthermore, defendant represented himself for only a portion of the trial (see People v Cabassa, 79 NY2d 722, 730-731 [1992], cert denied sub nom. Lind v New York, 506 US 1011 [1992]; People v Johnson, 251 AD2d 183 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 950 [1998]; People v Timmons, 199 AD 2d 8 [1993], lv denied 83 NY2d 811 [1994]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits on the scope of cross-examination (see People v Melcherts, 225 AD2d 357 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 881 [1996]). Defendant received ample opportunity to explore whether the police injured him in making the arrest and to thus raise a bias issue, as well as to take advantage of the fact that the police recovered buy money from a codefendant but not from defendant. There was no violation of defendant’s right to confront witnesses and present a defense (see Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683, 689-690 [1986]; Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.

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

[207]*207Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), rendered June 8, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly granted defendant’s request to proceed pro se for part of the cross-examination of the main undercover officer. The court conducted a proper inquiry in which it fully explained to defendant the dangers of self-representation and the importance of using a trained lawyer, and the record establishes that defendant, who had an extensive criminal record and claimed to have a college degree, had the experience and intelligence to understand the court’s warnings and knowingly waive his right to counsel (see People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579, 581 [2004]). Furthermore, defendant represented himself for only a portion of the trial (see People v Cabassa, 79 NY2d 722, 730-731 [1992], cert denied sub nom. Lind v New York, 506 US 1011 [1992]; People v Johnson, 251 AD2d 183 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 950 [1998]; People v Timmons, 199 AD 2d 8 [1993], lv denied 83 NY2d 811 [1994]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits on the scope of cross-examination (see People v Melcherts, 225 AD2d 357 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 881 [1996]). Defendant received ample opportunity to explore whether the police injured him in making the arrest and to thus raise a bias issue, as well as to take advantage of the fact that the police recovered buy money from a codefendant but not from defendant. There was no violation of defendant’s right to confront witnesses and present a defense (see Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683, 689-690 [1986]; Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 206, 838 N.Y.S.2d 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gosso-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack