People v. Melcherts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Melcherts

225 A.D.2d 357, 639 N.Y.2d 19, 639 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2218

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 357 (People v. Melcherts) 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. Melcherts, 225 A.D.2d 357, 639 N.Y.2d 19, 639 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The scope of cross-examination rests in the trial court’s discretion, which is reviewed on appeal only for plain abuse (People v Trinidad, 177 AD2d 286, lv denied 79 NY2d 865). A review of the record fails to demonstrate an abuse of such discretion in the trial court’s rulings precluding defendant’s cross-examination of the complainant about whether she made false criminal allegations against two other men and whether she traded sex for cocaine prior to the subject incident. Defendant failed to proffer a sufficient good faith basis to require the court to permit inquiry into either of these collateral matters. It should be noted that, on the oral argument, defense counsel conceded that the questions were for impeachment of the complainant’s general credibility only. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

The scope of cross-examination rests in the trial court’s discretion, which is reviewed on appeal only for plain abuse (People v Trinidad, 177 AD2d 286, lv denied 79 NY2d 865). A review of the record fails to demonstrate an abuse of such discretion in the trial court’s rulings precluding defendant’s cross-examination of the complainant about whether she made false criminal allegations against two other men and whether she traded sex for cocaine prior to the subject incident. Defendant failed to proffer a sufficient good faith basis to require the court to permit inquiry into either of these collateral matters. It should be noted that, on the oral argument, defense counsel conceded that the questions were for impeachment of the complainant’s general credibility only. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 357, 639 N.Y.2d 19, 639 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-melcherts-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack