People v. Uscange

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Uscange

186 A.D.2d 22, 587 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10477

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 22 (People v. Uscange) 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. Uscange, 186 A.D.2d 22, 587 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered January 17, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

" 'The range and extent of the cross-examination is within [23]*23the discretion of the Trial Judge, provided only that it relates to relevant matters or to matters affecting credibility’ ” (People v Tice, 131 NY 651, 657; see also, People v Betts, 70 NY2d 289, 293) and this discretion should not be second guessed in absence of " 'plain abuse and injustice’ ” (People v Sorge, 301 NY 198, 202). We find that the limited cross-examination of defendant by the prosecutor relating to whether defendant had blood on his hands was relevant. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered January 17, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

" 'The range and extent of the cross-examination is within [23]*23the discretion of the Trial Judge, provided only that it relates to relevant matters or to matters affecting credibility’ ” (People v Tice, 131 NY 651, 657; see also, People v Betts, 70 NY2d 289, 293) and this discretion should not be second guessed in absence of " 'plain abuse and injustice’ ” (People v Sorge, 301 NY 198, 202). We find that the limited cross-examination of defendant by the prosecutor relating to whether defendant had blood on his hands was relevant. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 22, 587 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-uscange-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack