People v. Marcus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marcus

266 A.D.2d 566, 698 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12195

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 566 (People v. Marcus) 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. Marcus, 266 A.D.2d 566, 698 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.), rendered March 13, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s request to cross-examine an undercover police officer regarding the officer’s alleged misidentification of individuals in two prior unrelated cases. Whether the officer erroneously described and/or apprehended individu[567]*567ais who were later released had no bearing on the issue of the identity of the defendant in this case. Accordingly, the trial court was within its discretion in limiting cross-examination on such a collateral matter (see, People v Almeida, 159 AD2d 508). Further, the prosecutor did not “open the door” to the line of questioning proposed by the defense counsel. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Smith, 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 (J. Leone, J.), rendered March 13, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s request to cross-examine an undercover police officer regarding the officer’s alleged misidentification of individuals in two prior unrelated cases. Whether the officer erroneously described and/or apprehended individu[567]*567ais who were later released had no bearing on the issue of the identity of the defendant in this case. Accordingly, the trial court was within its discretion in limiting cross-examination on such a collateral matter (see, People v Almeida, 159 AD2d 508). Further, the prosecutor did not “open the door” to the line of questioning proposed by the defense counsel. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 566, 698 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marcus-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack