From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Edwards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 9, 2005
19 A.D.3d 170 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

6287.

June 9, 2005.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered January 10, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

Laura R. Johnson, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Sheilah Fernandez of counsel), for appellant.

Charles Edwards, appellant pro se.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Jill Graziano of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Sullivan, JJ.


The trial court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits on defendant's cross-examination of police witnesses, and defendant was not deprived of his right to confront witnesses and present a defense ( see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679). Defendant received a full opportunity to impeach the witnesses and to attack the credibility and reliability of the undercover officer's account of his conversation with defendant. The relevance of the precluded inquiries was dubious, at best.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.


Summaries of

People v. Edwards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 9, 2005
19 A.D.3d 170 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

People v. Edwards

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES EDWARDS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 9, 2005

Citations

19 A.D.3d 170 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
798 N.Y.S.2d 374

Citing Cases

People v. Turner

In any event, even assuming the trial court erred in admitting the challenged evidence, the error was…

People v. Rosado

With respect to the ruling barring cross-examination about statements the complainant made on her Internet…