Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira R. Globerman, J.), rendered on or about December 17, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first and second degrees and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 20 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits on defendant's elicitation of evidence on direct and cross-examination, and none of the court's evidentiary rulings deprived defendant of his rights to confront witnesses and present a defense (see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 [1986]; Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 [1986] ). The court properly precluded evidence that one of the victims had also been sexually abused by someone other than defendant, since there was no relevant connection between that incident and the charges against defendant (see People v. Mandel, 48 N.Y.2d 952, 953, 425 N.Y.S.2d 63, 401 N.E.2d 185 [1979], cert. denied 446 U.S. 949, 100 S.Ct. 2913, 64 L.Ed.2d 805 [1980] ). Defendant's theory that this evidence, as well as other precluded evidence concerning the details of certain interconnected family relationships, tended to establish a motive for the child victims to give false testimony is remote and speculative (see People v. Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100, 105, 412 N.Y.S.2d 845, 385 N.E.2d 584 [1978], appeal dismissed 444 U.S. 891, 100 S.Ct. 197, 62 L.Ed.2d 127 [1979] ). Furthermore, the court properly precluded cross-examination of the psychologist regarding gynecological matters beyond his expertise (see People v. Bellini, 162 A.D.2d 693, 557 N.Y.S.2d 407 [1990], lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 937, 563 N.Y.S.2d 66, 564 N.E.2d 676 [1990] ).
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 03, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)