Judgment affirmed.
Defendant argues that his constitutional right to confrontation was violated by the court's refusal to strike the testimony of a prosecution witness who, upon cross-examination, asserted her privilege against self-incrimination. Any motive the witness had for testifying adversely to defendant was amply presented to the jury for its consideration, and thus further questioning would have been cumulative in nature (see, People v Clickner...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
