People v. Askew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Askew

42 A.D.2d 717, 346 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3951

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 717 (People v. Askew) 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. Askew, 42 A.D.2d 717, 346 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3951 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered February 14, 1972, convicting him of possession of weapons and dangerous instruments and appliances as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing an indeterminate sentence of not more than three years. The facts upon which the judgment is based have been considered and determined to have been established. Judgment reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered. Notwithstanding the strong evidence of defendant’s guilt, we feel that the Trial Judge’s disparagement of defense counsel and his undue participation during the course of the trial require that the judgment be reversed and a new trial be had (cf. People v. Mendes, 3 N Y 2d 120,121; People v. Williams, 40 A D 2d 690; People v. Adler, 274 App. Div. 820; People v. Kilroe, 201 App. Div. 549, 556; People v. Di Caño, 242 App. Div. 328). Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, 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, rendered February 14, 1972, convicting him of possession of weapons and dangerous instruments and appliances as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing an indeterminate sentence of not more than three years. The facts upon which the judgment is based have been considered and determined to have been established. Judgment reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered. Notwithstanding the strong evidence of defendant’s guilt, we feel that the Trial Judge’s disparagement of defense counsel and his undue participation during the course of the trial require that the judgment be reversed and a new trial be had (cf. People v. Mendes, 3 N Y 2d 120,121; People v. Williams, 40 A D 2d 690; People v. Adler, 274 App. Div. 820; People v. Kilroe, 201 App. Div. 549, 556; People v. Di Caño, 242 App. Div. 328). Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 717, 346 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-askew-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack