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, etc., Respondent, v. Daron GOODMAN, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leach, J.), rendered November 13, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (five counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court interfered with his right to conduct cross-examination of certain witnesses regarding the appearance of the lineup fillers. This contention is without merit.
Although the right of cross-examination is protected by the Constitution (see, U.S. Const. 6th Amend.; NY Const., art. I, § 6), the trial court retains wide discretion to limit cross-examination “based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant” (People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 246, 597 N.Y.S.2d 975, citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674). Here, the trial court prevented defense counsel from asking questions regarding the fillers since the information that defense counsel was trying to elicit could be discerned by the jury through an examination of the photograph of the lineup. Because this curtailment did not prevent the defendant from pursuing his argument before the jury that the fillers used in the lineup rendered the lineup unduly suggestive, the trial court's ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
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: February 20, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)