People v. Behling

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Behling

256 N.E.2d 193, 26 N.Y.2d 651, 307 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1671

DecidedJanuary 7, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 256 N.E.2d 193 (People v. Behling) 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. Behling, 256 N.E.2d 193, 26 N.Y.2d 651, 307 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1671 (N.Y. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A hearing solely to determine defendant’s or his lawyer’s knowledge of the codefendant’s recantation would not yield a decisive result. Regardless of whether defendant or his trial lawyer knew of the former codefendant’s recantation of statements involving defendant in the instant crime, it was not permissible for the prosecutor to advise the jury in summation that the codefendant had so implicated defendant without also advising them of the recantation. Nor is the impropriety made the less because the prosecutor may have believed the codefendant’s recantation to be false and a maneuver either to avoid giving testimony or to avoid being thought disloyal to the defendant (see People v. Ahmed, 20 N Y 2d 958, 960). Consequently, a new trial is required.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Beeitbl, Jasen and Gibson concur.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

A hearing solely to determine defendant’s or his lawyer’s knowledge of the codefendant’s recantation would not yield a decisive result. Regardless of whether defendant or his trial lawyer knew of the former codefendant’s recantation of statements involving defendant in the instant crime, it was not permissible for the prosecutor to advise the jury in summation that the codefendant had so implicated defendant without also advising them of the recantation. Nor is the impropriety made the less because the prosecutor may have believed the codefendant’s recantation to be false and a maneuver either to avoid giving testimony or to avoid being thought disloyal to the defendant (see People v. Ahmed, 20 N Y 2d 958, 960). Consequently, a new trial is required.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Beeitbl, Jasen and Gibson concur.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 N.E.2d 193, 26 N.Y.2d 651, 307 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-behling-ny-1970.