People v. Ramirez
| Decision Date | 25 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2011-06596 |
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02505,7 N.Y.S.3d 190,126 A.D.3d 1012 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Juan RAMIREZ, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
126 A.D.3d 1012
7 N.Y.S.3d 190
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02505
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent
v.
Juan RAMIREZ, appellant.
2011-06596
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
March 25, 2015.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Louis E. Mazzola of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Ronnie Jane Lamm of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), rendered June 17, 2011, convicting him of predatory sexual assault against a child (two counts), criminal sexual act in the first degree, and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the County Court deprived him of his constitutional right to confront adverse witnesses by, in effect, improperly curtailing or otherwise restricting his attorney's cross-examination of the child complainant and of the nurse who performed the sexual assault examination. In general, “curtailment [of cross-examination] will be judged improper when it keeps from the jury relevant and important facts bearing on the trustworthiness of crucial testimony” (People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 247, 597 N.Y.S.2d 975 ). The record makes clear that the defendant had ample opportunity to cross-examine both the child complainant and the nurse. To the extent that there was any curtailment or restriction of his cross-examination of these witnesses, the County Court's rulings were proper in all respects (see People v. Castellanos, 65 A.D.3d 555, 557, 884 N.Y.S.2d 126 ; People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 247, 597 N.Y.S.2d 975 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by allowing a doctor who examined the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kattau
...sexual intercourse, with the complainant (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, the testimony was admissible (see People v. Ramirez, 126 A.D.3d 1012, 7 N.Y.S.3d 190 ; People v. Heer, 12 A.D.3d 1154, 784 N.Y.S.2d 412 ).The defendant's contention that the trial court improperly admitted testimon......
-
People v. Mendez
...allegations of sexual conduct, and was admissible (see People v. Kattau, 192 A.D.3d at 911, 140 N.Y.S.3d 742 ; People v. Ramirez, 126 A.D.3d 1012, 1012, 7 N.Y.S.3d 190 ) to establish that she could have suffered a course of sexual conduct in the first degree without suffering long-term phys......
-
People v. May
...allowed her to state that an unremarkable sexual abuse examination was common in cases of child sexual abuse (see People v. Ramirez, 126 A.D.3d 1012, 1012, 7 N.Y.S.3d 190 [2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1149, 32 N.Y.S.3d 63, 51 N.E.3d 574 [2016] ; People v. Lashway, 112 A.D.3d 1222, 1224, 978 N......
- Lombardo v. Tag Court Square, LLC
-
Witness examination
...prohibited impeachment of the victim through questions regarding his immigration status on cross-examination. People v. Ramirez , 126 A.D.3d 1012, 7 N.Y.S.3d 190 (2d Dept. 2015). he trial court property restricted the defense attorney’s cross-examination of the child complainant and nurse w......
-
Witness examination
...prohibited impeachment of the victim through questions regarding his immigration status on cross-examination. People v. Ramirez , 126 A.D.3d 1012, 7 N.Y.S.3d 190 (2d Dept. 2015). he trial court property restricted the defense attorney’s cross-examination of the child complainant and nurse w......
-
Witness examination
...prohibited impeachment of the victim through questions regarding his immigration status on cross-examination. People v. Ramirez , 126 A.D.3d 1012, 7 N.Y.S.3d 190 (2d Dept. 2015). The trial court property restricted the defense attorney’s cross-examination of the child complainant and nurse ......
-
Witness examination
...prohibited impeachment of the victim through questions regarding his immigration status on cross-examination. People v. Ramirez , 126 A.D.3d 1012, 7 N.Y.S.3d 190 (2d Dept. 2015). he trial court property restricted the defense attorney’s cross-examination of the child complainant and nurse w......