People v. Barnes

70 A.D.2d 882, 417 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12459
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 4, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 70 A.D.2d 882 (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, 70 A.D.2d 882, 417 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered January 17, 1978, convicting him of three counts of robbery in the second degree (two counts under Indictment No. 2634/77 and one count under Indictment No. 2724/77), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgments reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and case remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. As the District Attorney concedes with commendable candor, reversal is required because of the inadequacy of defendant’s representation at trial. The record reveals that the defense attorney: (1) had the two instant indictments joined for trial, even though each was predicated upon an identification of defendant by a single eyewitness; (2) failed to seek a pretrial Wade hearing (see United States v Wade, 388 US 218; CPL 255.10, subd 1, par [f]; 710.20, subd 5), although identification was the primary issue in each case; (3) brought out on cross-examination prior, totally proper, photographic identifications of the defendant by each of the complaining witnesses, which could not have been elicited on the People’s case (see People v Christman, 23 NY2d 429); (4) failed to object to improper bolstering testimony by a witness for the People (see People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471); and (5) entered into a stipulation that another witness, if called upon to testify, would provide additional, bolstering testimony concerning an out-of-court identification of the defendant. This extensive, but by no means exhaustive, list of the trial defense attorney’s blunders, demonstrates unequivocally that defendant did not receive a fair trial (see People v Sarmiento, 40 AD2d 562). Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Shapiro and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Hewitt
95 A.D.3d 1358 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Morris
100 A.D.2d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. Figueroa
83 A.D.2d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 A.D.2d 882, 417 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barnes-nyappdiv-1979.