Summary
In People v McCormick (303 N.Y. 403, 404), the Court of Appeals stated: "In the case before us, confronting defendant with a written statement, purportedly made by him, and reading from it considerable inculpatory material tending to refute his earlier denials, not only rendered such denials futile but amounted to the production of extrinsic evidence within the meaning of the rule here involved."
Summary of this case from People v. WorrellOpinion
Argued December 5, 1951
Decided January 17, 1952
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, MULLEN, J.
Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney ( Richard G. Denzer and Chester E. Kleinberg of counsel), for appellant.
Elliott E. Vose, Florence M. Kelley and Martin Erdmann for respondent.
While the rule is clear that cross-examination upon collateral matters may not be fobbed off by a negative response (see People v. Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198), that rule does not sanction either "the calling of other witnesses or * * * the production of extrinsic evidence" to refute the witness' answer on such collateral items (p. 201). In the case before us, confronting defendant with a written statement, purportedly made by him, and reading from it considerable inculpatory material tending to refute his earlier denials, not only rendered such denials futile but amounted to the production of extrinsic evidence within the meaning of the rule here involved. In short, the cross-examination complained of exceeded all permissible limits.
The order should be affirmed.
LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND, DYE, FULD and FROESSEL, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.