People v. Merlino
This text of 145 A.D.2d 654 (People v. Merlino) 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.
Opinion
— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Costellino, J.), rendered May 16, 1985, convicting her of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2) and (3), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant’s claim that she was denied a fair trial when the trial court allowed the prosecutor to introduce, on redirect examination, a statement precluded by virtue of a pretrial denial of the People’s cross motion to serve a late notice pursuant to CPL 710.30. When, as here, a party opens the door on cross-examination to matters not touched upon by his opponent on his direct case, the latter may, on redirect, explain, clarify, or fully elicit the issue only partially examined on cross-examination (People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451; People v Regina, 19 NY2d 65, 78; People v Giallombardo, 128 AD2d 547, 548, lv denied 69 NY2d 1004). In this instance the prosecutor merely continued the line of questioning of the police officer, begun on cross-examination, which sought to elicit those factors which caused him to conclude [655]*655that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
145 A.D.2d 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-merlino-nyappdiv-1988.