You are here: / / Conviction Reversed Because of Improper Cross-Examination by Prosecutor;...
, ,

Conviction Reversed Because of Improper Cross-Examination by Prosecutor; Defendant Questioned About Boyfriend’s Criminal History and Her Employment History

The First Department reversed a conviction because of the prosecutor’s improper cross-examination of the defendant.  The defendant was accused of smuggling a knife to her boyfriend while he was incarcerated.  The defendant was cross-examined about her boyfriend’s gang membership and criminal history and defendant’s periods of unemployment (among other improper topics).  In addressing the cross-examination about defendant’s boyfriend’s criminal history, the First Department wrote:

The criminal history of defendant’s boyfriend was irrelevant to whether defendant “knowingly and unlawfully introduce[d] any dangerous contraband into a detention facility” … . The fact that Wright was a gang member with an extensive criminal history has no bearing on whether or not defendant knew she was introducing dangerous contraband into the facility, and could only serve to inflame the jury and prejudice defendant. As defendant correctly argues, this evidence served “no purpose but to suggest that defendant was associated with a disreputable person” … .People v Bartholomew, 2013 NY Slip Op 02699, 1st Dept, 4-23-13

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

You might also like
Records Sealed Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 160.50 Can Be Unsealed in “Dangerous Sex Offender” Proceeding Pursuant to Mental Health Law
BOARD OF RESIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE CORPORATION UNREASONABLY WITHHELD CONSENT TO TRANSFER SHARES AND PROPRIETARY LEASE TO TWO SONS OF THE DECEASED APARTMENT RESIDENTS.
IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OWNERS-OCCUPIERS OF A BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE LIABLE FOR A FALLING OBJECT INJURY TO A SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN (FIRST DEPT).
Throwing Objects Off Balcony Evinces Depraved Indifference.
WHERE THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN AN ORDER OR A JUDGMENT AND THE DECISION UPON WHICH IT IS BASED, THE DECISION CONTROLS (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT CREATED AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS STILL CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE 10-DAY CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL PERIOD, THE FOUR-MONTH PERIOD FOR COMMENCING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING DID NOT START ON THE CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL DATE; THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (FIRST DEPT).
Part Performance Exception to the Statute of Frauds Does Not Apply to Contracts Which Cannot Be Performed Within One Year

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Copyright Infringement Action Re Pre-1972 Recordings Not Precluded by “Safe... Employee-Status Proven and Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Provision Applied;...