People v. Olivares

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Olivares

34 A.D.3d 602, 824 N.Y.S.2d 172

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 602 (People v. Olivares) 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. Olivares, 34 A.D.3d 602, 824 N.Y.S.2d 172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered June 8, 2004, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, and intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentencing.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the County Court improperly limited his cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Lyons, 81 NY2d 753 [1992]; People v Maddrey, 282 AD2d 761 [2001]). In any event, the County Court properly limited the defendant’s cross-examination (see People v Cato, 5 AD3d 394 [2004]; People v Heung K. Sul, 234 AD2d 563 [1996]).

Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly denied his application to have a handwriting expert examine the victim’s diary. Any testimony by a handwriting expert would have been offered solely to impeach the victim’s credibility, and the credibility of a witness may not be impeached through extrinsic evidence on matters collateral to the issues in the case (see People v Alexander, 16 AD 3d 515 [2005]; People v Rendon, 301 AD2d 665 [2003]; People v Ragland, 240 AD2d 598 [1997]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, 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 County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered June 8, 2004, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, and intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentencing.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the County Court improperly limited his cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Lyons, 81 NY2d 753 [1992]; People v Maddrey, 282 AD2d 761 [2001]). In any event, the County Court properly limited the defendant’s cross-examination (see People v Cato, 5 AD3d 394 [2004]; People v Heung K. Sul, 234 AD2d 563 [1996]).

Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly denied his application to have a handwriting expert examine the victim’s diary. Any testimony by a handwriting expert would have been offered solely to impeach the victim’s credibility, and the credibility of a witness may not be impeached through extrinsic evidence on matters collateral to the issues in the case (see People v Alexander, 16 AD 3d 515 [2005]; People v Rendon, 301 AD2d 665 [2003]; People v Ragland, 240 AD2d 598 [1997]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 602, 824 N.Y.S.2d 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-olivares-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack