From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Merlino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 30, 1988
145 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

December 30, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Costellino, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We disagree with the defendant's claim that she was denied a fair trial when the trial court allowed the prosecutor to introduce, on redirect examination, a statement precluded by virtue of a pretrial denial of the People's cross motion to serve a late notice pursuant to CPL 710.30. When, as here, a party opens the door on cross-examination to matters not touched upon by his opponent on his direct case, the latter may, on redirect, explain, clarify, or fully elicit the issue only partially examined on cross-examination (People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451; People v Regina, 19 N.Y.2d 65, 78; People v Giallombardo, 128 A.D.2d 547, 548, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1004). In this instance the prosecutor merely continued the line of questioning of the police officer, begun on cross-examination, which sought to elicit those factors which caused him to conclude that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Merlino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 30, 1988
145 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Merlino

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CONSTANCE MERLINO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 30, 1988

Citations

145 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Vaughn

In any event, defense counsel opened the door to the negative identification testimony by suggesting through…

People v. Singh

Even if it could be assumed that defense counsel opened the door to this area of inquiry on his direct…