Legal Opinion

People v. Frieson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 13, 1984PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The determination as to whether to reopen a case for further testimony rests in the reasonable discretion of the Trial Judge (People v Ventura, 35 NY2d 654). Here, the Trial Judge acted reasonably in refusing to allow defense counsel to recall a prosecution witness for additional cross-examination after the prosecutor had rested. Defense counsel failed to show that the information sought to be elicited on cross-examination could not have been discovered earlier. Further, although defense counsel claimed to have a letter suggesting that someone may…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. People v. VenturaNew York Court of Appeals · 1974

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. People v. FamaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  2. People v. BlairAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  3. State v. Acker.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2014
  4. People v. DixonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  5. People v. SaddlerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API