People v. Andino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Andino

98 A.D.2d 750, 469 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21070

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 750 (People v. Andino) 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. Andino, 98 A.D.2d 750, 469 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21070 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.), rendered February 24, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. In our view, the trial court’s charge suggesting that the complaining witness may very well be telling the truth, even though he had a prior criminal record, warrants reversal in view of the nature and quality of the People’s evidence (see People v Hernandez, 67 AD2d 988, 989; People v Coleman, 70 AD2d 600). In particular, we find that the trial court erred by commenting, “[i]f a jury should say that every witness whose manner or morals they may not approve, so therefore, they must not be telling the truth, then a great many of the most heinous crimes that come before juries would go unpunished” (cf. People v Hurel, 60 AD2d 537). We also note that the court’s general charge regarding the critical issue of identification, although technically correct, should have been given in greater detail (see People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279; People v Landor, 92 AD2d 625, 626). Under the facts and circumstances in this case, we conclude that the errors warrant a new trial. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.), rendered February 24, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. In our view, the trial court’s charge suggesting that the complaining witness may very well be telling the truth, even though he had a prior criminal record, warrants reversal in view of the nature and quality of the People’s evidence (see People v Hernandez, 67 AD2d 988, 989; People v Coleman, 70 AD2d 600). In particular, we find that the trial court erred by commenting, “[i]f a jury should say that every witness whose manner or morals they may not approve, so therefore, they must not be telling the truth, then a great many of the most heinous crimes that come before juries would go unpunished” (cf. People v Hurel, 60 AD2d 537). We also note that the court’s general charge regarding the critical issue of identification, although technically correct, should have been given in greater detail (see People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279; People v Landor, 92 AD2d 625, 626). Under the facts and circumstances in this case, we conclude that the errors warrant a new trial. Titone, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 750, 469 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-andino-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack