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
DISCLOSURE OF SUBSTANCE OF DEFENSE EXPERT’S OPINION INADEQUATE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE WORDING OF THE WILL RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE TESTATOR BECAUSE SEVERAL CHILDREN WERE MISIDENTIFIED AND ONE WAS OMITTED; THE PETITION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE WILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Promise Made or Advice Given by a Municipal Employee Does Not Give Rise to Equitable Estoppel
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BECAUSE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS MADE; THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONDITIONAL ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AN UNAUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD ON APPEAL TO WHICH THE PARTIES STIPULATED WAS NOT CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE HIRING PARTY IS GENERALLY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THERE IS A NONDELEGABLE-DUTY EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE; THE OWNER OF A BAR OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS; HERE THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WAS REPAIRING THE BUILDING FACADE WHEN A CONCRETE BUCKET FELL ON THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
THE SENTENCES FOR ASSAULT AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONSECUTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS HOUSED FIVE HOURS AWAY FROM THE COURT AND HIS ATTORNEY, REPEATED REQUESTS TO MOVE DEFENDANT CLOSER WERE GRANTED BUT NOT COMPLIED WITH, DEFENDANT MOVED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AT SENTENCING, GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY DEFENDANT HAD EFFECTIVELY BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, INQUIRY INTO THE VOLUNTARINESS OF OF THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2026 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...