You are here: / / TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LIMITED DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS...
, , ,

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LIMITED DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS TESTIFYING ABOUT DNA TRANSFER, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO ACCEPT A POLICE OFFICER’S EXPLANATION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge should not have limited cross-examination of the prosecution’s witness about DNA transfer, and should not have instructed the jury, during defense counsel’s summation, to accept the testimony of a prosecution witness:

… [T]he defendant’s contention that his right to confrontation was violated when the Supreme Court limited cross-examination of a prosecution witness on the issue of DNA transfer is preserved for appellate review  … . Furthermore, the court’s limitation of defense counsel’s cross-examination with regard to DNA transfer was an improvident exercise of discretion, since the testimony defense counsel sought to elicit would have been relevant and would not have confused or misled the jury … . Moreover, under the circumstances presented, the error was not harmless, as there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant’s convictions … .

We also agree with the defendant’s contention that his right to a fair trial was violated when, during summation, defense counsel attacked the credibility of the testimony of certain police officers regarding wanted posters, and the Supreme Court instructed the jury, “there was testimony on that. The jurors will be bound by its recollection of the testimony and the explanation.” Since a “jury is presumed to follow the court’s instructions” … , the court’s instruction, which bound the jury to accept the officer’s explanation, rather than to rely on its recollection of the testimony and the evidence, was erroneous. People v Kennedy, 2019 NY Slip Op 07899, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

You might also like
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(A)(1); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DISCONTINUED (SECOND DEPT). ​
INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT, NO DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY LOSING WEIGHT, REQUEST FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SEND THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS ACTING AS THE OWNER’S AGENT OR THAT IT HAD SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER THE WORK; THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS AGAINST THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
No Action Where Plaintiff Struck by Small Piece of Sheetrock Dropped from Third Floor
Requirements for Common Law Indemnification and Contribution Causes of Action Explained
33 HOUR DELAY IN ARRAIGNMENT, UNDER THE FACTS, DID NOT RENDER STATEMENT INVOLUNTARILY MADE.

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

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE (SECOND... THE BUILDER OF THE HOUSE WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE...