People v. Albanese

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Albanese

228 N.E.2d 414, 19 N.Y.2d 965, 281 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1439

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 31, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 228 N.E.2d 414 (People v. Albanese) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Albanese, 228 N.E.2d 414, 19 N.Y.2d 965, 281 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1439 (N.Y. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The instructions given by the court to the jury in an attempt to lead to agreement on a verdict do not, as a matter of law and in the absence of appropriate objection, require the reversal of the judgment of conviction. But in reviewing the fairness of the trial and in the exercise of a sound discretion in consideration of the facts, the Appellate Division may be justified in directing a new trial. The order appealed from, resting on the law, does not recite whether questions of fact and discretion were considered. For this reason, the order should be reversed and the ease remitted to the Appellate Division' for its consideration of questions of fact and discretion [967]*967(Code Grim. Pro., §§ 543-a, 543-b; People v. Cohen, 5 N T 2d 282).

Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Keating concur in memorandum.; Chief Judge Ftjld and Judges Van Voorhis and Breitel dissent and vote to affirm upon the opinion at the Appellate Division.

Order reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division to pass upon questions of fact or discretion in accordance with the memorandum herein.

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

Memorandum. The instructions given by the court to the jury in an attempt to lead to agreement on a verdict do not, as a matter of law and in the absence of appropriate objection, require the reversal of the judgment of conviction. But in reviewing the fairness of the trial and in the exercise of a sound discretion in consideration of the facts, the Appellate Division may be justified in directing a new trial. The order appealed from, resting on the law, does not recite whether questions of fact and discretion were considered. For this reason, the order should be reversed and the ease remitted to the Appellate Division' for its consideration of questions of fact and discretion [967]*967(Code Grim. Pro., §§ 543-a, 543-b; People v. Cohen, 5 N T 2d 282).

Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Keating concur in memorandum.; Chief Judge Ftjld and Judges Van Voorhis and Breitel dissent and vote to affirm upon the opinion at the Appellate Division.

Order reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division to pass upon questions of fact or discretion in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 N.E.2d 414, 19 N.Y.2d 965, 281 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-albanese-ny-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack