Opinion
June 8, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by impermissibly curtailing the defense counsel's cross-examination of the medical examiner. We disagree.
The trial court has wide latitude and broad discretion in controlling cross-examination (see, People v. Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198, 202; People v. Almeida, 159 A.D.2d 508, 509). Here, the defense counsel attempted to elicit from the medical examiner information regarding what scientific tests exist which can determine the distance at which a gun was fired into a victim. Since the testimony of the medical examiner clearly indicated that these tests were not used in this case, and that the medical examiner had insufficient evidence from the autopsy to determine the distance at which the gun had been fired, the existence of other scientific tests not used here was irrelevant, and the trial court properly sustained an objection to this question.
The defendant's remaining contentions regarding the trial court's curtailing of the defense counsel's cross-examination of the medical examiner are also without merit. Harwood, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.