People v. Salgado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Salgado

70 A.D.3d 864, 892 N.Y.S.2d 903

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 9, 2010·Published

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered June 5, 2007, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The nature and extent of cross-examination is subject to the sound discretion of the trial judge (see People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244 [1969], cert denied 396 US 846 [1969]). Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, defense counsel’s cross-examination of the complainant was not improperly curtailed or restricted (see People v Macuil, 67 AD3d 1025 [2009]; People v Martin, 33 AD3d 1024 [2006]).

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly precluded the defendant from displaying certain scarring on his legs to the jury (see generally People v Aska, 91 NY2d 979, 981 [1998]; People v Bowen, 67 AD3d 1022 [2009]; People v Martin, 27 AD3d 665 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Hall, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered June 5, 2007, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The nature and extent of cross-examination is subject to the sound discretion of the trial judge (see People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244 [1969], cert denied 396 US 846 [1969]). Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, defense counsel’s cross-examination of the complainant was not improperly curtailed or restricted (see People v Macuil, 67 AD3d 1025 [2009]; People v Martin, 33 AD3d 1024 [2006]).

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly precluded the defendant from displaying certain scarring on his legs to the jury (see generally People v Aska, 91 NY2d 979, 981 [1998]; People v Bowen, 67 AD3d 1022 [2009]; People v Martin, 27 AD3d 665 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

People v. Salgado, 70 A.D.3d 864, 892 N.Y.S.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

70 A.D.3d 864 (People v. Salgado) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related