People v. Newsome

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Newsome

303 A.D.2d 317, 757 N.Y.S.2d 274, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3258

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 317 (People v. Newsome) 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. Newsome, 303 A.D.2d 317, 757 N.Y.S.2d 274, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered June 12, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts each of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to two terms each of 17 years and 10 years, respectively, with all sentences to run concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting defendant’s redirect examination of his expert witness (see People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451 [1982]). Defendant received a full opportunity to rehabilitate the expert, and the People’s elicitation on cross-examination of the fact that the expert was testifying for a fee did not create any need for defendant to explore the expert’s conclusions in unrelated cases. Accordingly, there was no curtailment of defendant’s right to present a defense.

The record does not establish that defendant’s sentence was based on any improper criteria and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

[318]*318Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered June 12, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts each of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to two terms each of 17 years and 10 years, respectively, with all sentences to run concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting defendant’s redirect examination of his expert witness (see People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451 [1982]). Defendant received a full opportunity to rehabilitate the expert, and the People’s elicitation on cross-examination of the fact that the expert was testifying for a fee did not create any need for defendant to explore the expert’s conclusions in unrelated cases. Accordingly, there was no curtailment of defendant’s right to present a defense.

The record does not establish that defendant’s sentence was based on any improper criteria and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

[318]*318Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 317, 757 N.Y.S.2d 274, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-newsome-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack