People v. Ponce

213 A.D.2d 725, 624 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3591
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 29, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 725 (People v. Ponce) 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. Ponce, 213 A.D.2d 725, 624 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered September 29, 1993, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly admitted into evidence photographs which depicted the victim’s burn injuries approximately one month after the incident. The photographs were admitted to illustrate the extent of the victim’s injuries and thereby aid in establishing the defendant’s intent when he inflicted those injuries. The photographs also corroborated the testimony of the medical expert. There is no indication in the record that the photographs were admitted for the sole purpose of arousing the emotions of the jury (see, People v Wood, 79 NY2d 958; People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833; People v Dellemand, 205 AD2d 551; People v Harrison, 207 AD2d 359).

Furthermore, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was denied his rights to confrontation, to effective cross-examination, and to present a defense by the trial court’s limiting the scope and extent of cross-examination of a prosecution witness. While the defendant asserts that the witness previously made an impeachable statement, there is nothing in the record to support this conclusion. Therefore, [726]*726the trial court properly exercised its discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination in relation to the credibility and accuracy of a witness (People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, cert denied 442 US 910).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Lawrence and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Meeks
56 A.D.2d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Morel
297 A.D.2d 757 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Knoesel
293 A.D.2d 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Collic
285 A.D.2d 514 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Domblewski
238 A.D.2d 916 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Mohabir
237 A.D.2d 536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. DeBerry
234 A.D.2d 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Sierra
215 A.D.2d 788 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
213 A.D.2d 725, 624 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ponce-nyappdiv-1995.