People v. Barnes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barnes

58 A.D.2d 608, 395 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12659

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

DecidedJune 13, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 58 A.D.2d 608 (People v. Barnes) 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. Barnes, 58 A.D.2d 608, 395 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 26, 1974, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, indictment dismissed. In our opinion the substitution (without appellant’s consent and over his objection) of an alternate juror after deliberations had commenced was prejudicial error (see People v Ryan, 19 NY2d 100). The subject theft involved the taking of $24 worth of meat from a supermarket. Appellant did not personally commit any act of violence. He has served his sentence. Under the circumstances, a dismissal of the indictment, rather than a new trial, is appropriate (see People v Kvalheim, 17 NY2d 510; cf. People v Allen, 39 NY2d 916). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Margett and O’Connor, 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 March 26, 1974, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, indictment dismissed. In our opinion the substitution (without appellant’s consent and over his objection) of an alternate juror after deliberations had commenced was prejudicial error (see People v Ryan, 19 NY2d 100). The subject theft involved the taking of $24 worth of meat from a supermarket. Appellant did not personally commit any act of violence. He has served his sentence. Under the circumstances, a dismissal of the indictment, rather than a new trial, is appropriate (see People v Kvalheim, 17 NY2d 510; cf. People v Allen, 39 NY2d 916). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 608, 395 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barnes-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack