People v. Mancuso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mancuso

267 A.D.2d 252, 700 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12501

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 252 (People v. Mancuso) 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. Mancuso, 267 A.D.2d 252, 700 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered December 2, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

After the close of the defendant’s case, the People were permitted to introduce the defendant’s arrest photograph as rebuttal evidence and to recall a police detective to testify that the photograph accurately depicted the defendant’s appearance, including his clothing, at the time of his arrest. When the defendant attempted to introduce evidence to rebut the People’s rebuttal evidence, the Supreme Court denied the application, holding that “[t]here is no surrebuttal”. After continued colloquy on this matter the defendant objected to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The ruling was error and therefore we reverse and order a new trial.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review the issue of whether he was improperly [253]*253precluded from offering evidence to rebut the People’s rebuttal evidence. Since the precluded testimony would have tended to disprove the affirmative facts which the prosecution sought to prove by its rebuttal evidence, and since the defendant is allowed to offer rebuttal thereto (see, CPL 260.30 [7]) the Supreme Court erred in precluding him from offering that evidence (see, People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, cert denied 460 US 1047; cf., People v Gabriel, 241 AD2d 835, 837). Since there is less than overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the error was not harmless (see, People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered December 2, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

After the close of the defendant’s case, the People were permitted to introduce the defendant’s arrest photograph as rebuttal evidence and to recall a police detective to testify that the photograph accurately depicted the defendant’s appearance, including his clothing, at the time of his arrest. When the defendant attempted to introduce evidence to rebut the People’s rebuttal evidence, the Supreme Court denied the application, holding that “[t]here is no surrebuttal”. After continued colloquy on this matter the defendant objected to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The ruling was error and therefore we reverse and order a new trial.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review the issue of whether he was improperly [253]*253precluded from offering evidence to rebut the People’s rebuttal evidence. Since the precluded testimony would have tended to disprove the affirmative facts which the prosecution sought to prove by its rebuttal evidence, and since the defendant is allowed to offer rebuttal thereto (see, CPL 260.30 [7]) the Supreme Court erred in precluding him from offering that evidence (see, People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, cert denied 460 US 1047; cf., People v Gabriel, 241 AD2d 835, 837). Since there is less than overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the error was not harmless (see, People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 252, 700 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mancuso-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack