Legal Opinion

People v. Matos

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

Decided February 2, 1990PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the prosecutor’s request to reopen his direct case to offer evidence from a codefendant. The decision to reopen a case during trial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v Ventura, 35 NY2d 654; People v Dixon, 147 AD2d 769, 773). Further, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s request to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment (see, Penal Law § 40.05). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see, People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 750), we conclude that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. ButtsNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
  2. People v. DeGinaNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. People v. VenturaNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
  4. People v. ThompsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
  5. People v. DixonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People v. McCulloughAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
  2. People v. ChaudhryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  3. MCCULLOUGH, JAMELL R., PEOPLE vAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
  4. People v. McCulloughAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API