People v. Laboy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Laboy

202 A.D.2d 325, 609 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2707

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 325 (People v. Laboy) 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. Laboy, 202 A.D.2d 325, 609 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered November 17, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 8 Vs to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in the court’s limitation of defendant’s attempts to impeach the eyewitness. Specifically, the court’s preclusion of impeachment by means of a "prior inconsistent statement”, the details of which were uncertain and susceptible to distortion, was an appropriate exercise of discretion (People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 81, cert denied 442 US 910).

The court also properly exercised its discretion in preventing the defense summation from straying from the evidence (see, People v Charles, 61 NY2d 321, 329). Finally, the court did not display bias merely because it repeatedly made proper rulings adverse to defendant (see, People v Martinez, 183 AD2d 485). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered November 17, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 8 Vs to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in the court’s limitation of defendant’s attempts to impeach the eyewitness. Specifically, the court’s preclusion of impeachment by means of a "prior inconsistent statement”, the details of which were uncertain and susceptible to distortion, was an appropriate exercise of discretion (People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 81, cert denied 442 US 910).

The court also properly exercised its discretion in preventing the defense summation from straying from the evidence (see, People v Charles, 61 NY2d 321, 329). Finally, the court did not display bias merely because it repeatedly made proper rulings adverse to defendant (see, People v Martinez, 183 AD2d 485). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 325, 609 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-laboy-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack