People v. Benjudah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Benjudah

281 A.D.2d 554, 721 N.Y.S.2d 811, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2634

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 554 (People v. Benjudah) 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. Benjudah, 281 A.D.2d 554, 721 N.Y.S.2d 811, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered March 17, 1999, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his request to charge the jury that one of the People’s witnesses was an accomplice as a matter of law, and that his testimony therefore required corroboration (see, CPL 60.22). Under the circumstances, the witness is considered an accomplice as a matter of law, and the jury should have been instructed accordingly (see, People v Sweet, 78 NY2d 263; CPL 60.22). Since the error was not harmless, we reverse and order a new trial.

In light of the above determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contentions. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered March 17, 1999, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his request to charge the jury that one of the People’s witnesses was an accomplice as a matter of law, and that his testimony therefore required corroboration (see, CPL 60.22). Under the circumstances, the witness is considered an accomplice as a matter of law, and the jury should have been instructed accordingly (see, People v Sweet, 78 NY2d 263; CPL 60.22). Since the error was not harmless, we reverse and order a new trial.

In light of the above determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contentions. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 554, 721 N.Y.S.2d 811, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-benjudah-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack