People v. Paixao
| Decision Date | 28 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2002-01395. |
| Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 09122,806 N.Y.S.2d 672,23 A.D.3d 677 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EDWARD PAIXAO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court improperly impeded his ability to present his defense by curtailing his cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and limiting his summation. We disagree. The trial court has broad discretion to limit cross-examination when questions are repetitive, irrelevant or only marginally relevant, concern collateral issues, or threaten to mislead the jury (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 679 [1986]; People v Aska, 91 NY2d 979, 981 [1998]; People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 245 [1969], cert denied 396 US 846 [1969]; People v Messa, 299 AD2d 495, 496 [2002]; People v Kinard, 215 AD2d 591 [1995]; People v Ashner, 190 AD2d 238, 246 [1993]; People v Martinez, 177 AD2d 600, 601 [1991]). The trial court providently exercised its discretion in this case. Moreover, the trial court properly excluded evidence of third-party culpability that was purely speculative in nature (see People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521 [2005]; People v Primo, 96 NY2d 351 [2001]). The trial court also correctly limited the defense summation to matters of evidence that were properly adduced at trial (see People v Romano, 301 AD2d 666, 667 [2003]). It properly sustained the People's objections to defense summation comments that were based on speculation and that violated the trial court's evidentiary rulings (see People v Bistonath, 216 AD2d 478, 479 [1995]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor's objections and the trial court's rulings violated his constitutional rights (see People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; People v Tucker, 21 AD3d 387 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Watson
...on wholesale speculation, violated the court's evidentiary rulings, or were not fair comment on the evidence (see People v. Paixao, 23 A.D.3d 677, 678, 806 N.Y.S.2d 672 ; People v. Bistonath, 216 A.D.2d 478, 479, 628 N.Y.S.2d 738 ; People v. Barreau, 183 A.D.2d 904, 584 N.Y.S.2d 140 ). As t......
-
People v. Forbes
...91 A.D.3d 1188, 1190, 936 N.Y.S.2d 778 [2012], lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 999, 945 N.Y.S.2d 654, 968 N.E.2d 1010 [2012]; People v. Paixao, 23 A.D.3d 677, 678, 806 N.Y.S.2d 672 [2005], lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 816, 812 N.Y.S.2d 456, 845 N.E.2d 1287 [2006]; People v. Washington, 21 A.D.3d 253, 253, 799 N.......
-
People v. Nesbitt
...after the last charged robbery ( see People v. Aska, 91 N.Y.2d 979, 981, 674 N.Y.S.2d 271, 697 N.E.2d 172; see also People v. Paixao, 23 A.D.3d 677, 806 N.Y.S.2d 672). The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representatio......
-
People v. Washington
...such questioning had the potential to mislead the jury ( see People v. Haynes, 39 A.D.3d 562, 564, 833 N.Y.S.2d 193;People v. Paixao, 23 A.D.3d 677, 678, 806 N.Y.S.2d 672). The defendant contends that the Supreme Court violated his right to confrontation by permitting the People to introduc......