People v. Sawyer
| Decision Date | 21 April 2003 |
| Citation | 757 N.Y.S.2d 766,304 A.D.2d 775 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>WILLIAM SAWYER, Also Known as JOHN WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in limiting his cross-examination of a detective regarding a purported motive to fabricate. While proof tending to establish a motive to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on that ground, such proof may be excluded when it is too remote and speculative (see People v Hoover, 298 AD2d 599 [2002]).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to present a defense because the trial court precluded certain questions regarding the detective's investigation of the crime. The defendant had the opportunity to fully explore the detective's alleged failure to conduct a proper investigation and the few questions which were not permitted were either repetitive or improperly called for speculative answers (see People v Devers, 296 AD2d 343 [2002]; People v Goodman, 280 AD2d 611 [2001]).
Finally, the trial court properly refused to admit into evidence the criminal court complaint containing prior inconsistent statements of the detective since the defendant failed to lay a proper foundation for its admission (see People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 80-81 [1978], cert denied 442 US 910 [1979]; People v Sutton, 209 AD2d 456 [1994]). The defendant's contention that any attempt to lay a foundation would have been futile is speculative.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strzelecki v. Cunningham
...a defense." Strzelecki, 108 A.D.3d at 645 (citing People v. Monroe, 30 A.D.3d 616, 617 (N.Y. App. Div., 2d Dep't 2006); People v. Sawyer, 304 A.D.2d 775 (2003)). Generally, an erroneous evidentiary ruling by a state trial court does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation upon w......
-
People v. Gibson
...17 N.Y.3d 46, 53, 926 N.Y.S.2d 382, 950 N.E.2d 118 ; People v. Herring, 101 A.D.3d 1151, 1152, 956 N.Y.S.2d 534 ; People v. Sawyer, 304 A.D.2d 775, 757 N.Y.S.2d 766 ). The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appeari......
-
People v. Strzelecki
...( see People v. Monroe, 30 A.D.3d 616, 617, 817 N.Y.S.2d 150;People v. Ocampo, 28 A.D.3d 684, 685, 813 N.Y.S.2d 217;People v. Sawyer, 304 A.D.2d 775, 757 N.Y.S.2d 766). In the instant case, the proposed testimony of the defendant's sister-in-law regarding the relationship between the defend......
-
People v. Robertson
...those statements into evidence (see People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 80–81, 412 N.Y.S.2d 833, 385 N.E.2d 572 ; People v. Sawyer, 304 A.D.2d 775, 776, 757 N.Y.S.2d 766 ; People v. Sutton, 209 A.D.2d 456, 457, 619 N.Y.S.2d 575 ).The Supreme Court should not have allowed the People to recall th......