From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Frieson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1984
103 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

July 13, 1984

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Bergin, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and O'Donnell, JJ.


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 N.Y.2d 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 have heard the prosecution witness make an inconsistent statement, he made no showing that he had a witness available who would testify to such a statement.

¶ We have examined defendant's claims concerning incompetent representation by counsel and we find them without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Frieson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1984
103 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

People v. Frieson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ALBERT FRIESON…

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

Date published: Jul 13, 1984

Citations

103 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

State v. Acker

The determination whether to reopen a case for further testimony is addressed to the reasonable discretion of…

People v. Whipple

Thus, while a trial court certainly has discretion in permitting witnesses to testify out of the usual order…