People v Williams

Annotate this Case
People v Williams 2015 NY Slip Op 05297 Decided on June 18, 2015 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 18, 2015
Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, JJ.
15403 401/11

[*1] The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Michael C. Williams, Defendant-Appellant.



Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Svetlana M. Kornfeind of counsel), and Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York (Daniel R. LeCours of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Patricia Curran of counsel), for respondent.



Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel McCullough, J.), rendered August 10, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 90 days, concurrent with 5 years' probation, unanimously affirmed.

In this case involving events that followed a political demonstration, the court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine defense witnesses about their positions on certain controversial issues, because, under the particular circumstances of the case, these matters were relevant to bias (see generally United States v Abel , 469 US 45 [1984]) and were responsive to issues raised by the defense. However, the court should have exercised its discretion to control the manner and extent of examination of the witnesses to avoid excessive questioning relevant only to the witnesses' credibility and potential bias. In any event, any error was harmless and a mistrial was not warranted (see People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 18, 2015

CLERK



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.