People v. Frieson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
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
- People v. VenturaNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
3Cited by9 opinions
- People v. FamaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- People v. BlairAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- State v. Acker.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2014
- People v. DixonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- 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.