People v. Aitken

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Aitken

30 A.D.2d 812, 292 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3525

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 812 (People v. Aitken) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Aitken, 30 A.D.2d 812, 292 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 28, 1967, reversed, on the law, defendant’s guilty plea vacated, and action remitted to the trial court for the purpose of conducting a new hearing in accordance with the memorandum herewith. The findings of fact below have not been considered. At the hearing held upon defendant’s motion to suppress evidence (Code Crim. Pro., §§ 813-c et seq.), and under the circumstances at bar, it was reversible error for the trial court to deny to defendant an examination of the minutes of the Grand Jury testimony of the police officer who had searched defendant and for whose cross-examination defendant had requested the minutes (People v. Rosario, 9 N Y 2d 286; People v. Malinsky, [813]*81315 N Y 2d 86). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 28, 1967, reversed, on the law, defendant’s guilty plea vacated, and action remitted to the trial court for the purpose of conducting a new hearing in accordance with the memorandum herewith. The findings of fact below have not been considered. At the hearing held upon defendant’s motion to suppress evidence (Code Crim. Pro., §§ 813-c et seq.), and under the circumstances at bar, it was reversible error for the trial court to deny to defendant an examination of the minutes of the Grand Jury testimony of the police officer who had searched defendant and for whose cross-examination defendant had requested the minutes (People v. Rosario, 9 N Y 2d 286; People v. Malinsky, [813]*81315 N Y 2d 86). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 812, 292 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-aitken-nyappdiv-1968.