People v. Frieson, 103 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Frieson, 103 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Owens (nyappdiv, 2018-03-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Owens
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Although it is undisputed that defense counsel could have, with the exercise of due diligence, viewed the video in its entirety and reviewed it with defendant pursuant to his pretrial requests ( see People v Frieson , 103 AD2d 1009, 1009 [4th Dept 1984]), the court erred in failing to recognize defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense and confront his accuser with evidence that, under these circumstances, would certainly [*3]influence the jury's determination of guilt ( see generally People v Burke , 176 AD2d 1000, 1001 [3d Dept 1991]; People v Harami , 93 AD2d 867, 867-8…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Canty
nycountyct · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
Additionally, the Third Department has also held that it is an abuse of a trial court’s discretion to permit the prosecution to reopen its case in order to adduce testimony by alleged eyewitnesses which should have been presented in the People’s main case (see, People v Whipple, 276 AD2d 829 ; see also, People v Frieson, 103 AD2d 1009 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Whipple
N.Y. App. Div. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
Significantly, the need to prove this particular element was not an unexpected or unforeseen development (see, People v Serrano, 261 AD2d 197, 198 , lv denied 94 NY2d 829 ; People v Ayers, supra; see also, People v Frieson, 103 AD2d 1009 ), it having been the subject of the precharge conference during the trial.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Albert Frieson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 13, 1984.
103 A.D.2d 1009
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

— 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 NY2d 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, f We have examined defendant’s claims concerning incompetent representation by counsel and we find them without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Bergin, J. — murder, second degree, and other charges.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.