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

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 2010

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 864, 892 N.Y.S.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-salgado-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack