People v. Bennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bennett

23 A.D.2d 890, 260 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4071

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

DecidedMay 24, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 890 (People v. Bennett) 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. Bennett, 23 A.D.2d 890, 260 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4071 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered November 30, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur; Christ, J., dissents and votes to remit the action to the trial court for a hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of defendant’s confession, with the following memorandum : Although the defendant did not specifically raise any issue as to the voluntariness of his confession, and although the issue was not presented for the consideration of the jury, the record contains sufficient evidence to justify the raising of the issue. Under the circumstances I believe that the doctrine of Jackson v. Denno (378 U. S. 368) and People v. Huntley (15 N Y 2d 72) is applicable. The court’s questions addressed to the accomplice Magennis would indicate to the mind of a juror that the Trial Justice found this witness incredible and thus the effectiveness of the only witness exonerating the defendant was destroyed.

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, Queens County, rendered November 30, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur; Christ, J., dissents and votes to remit the action to the trial court for a hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of defendant’s confession, with the following memorandum : Although the defendant did not specifically raise any issue as to the voluntariness of his confession, and although the issue was not presented for the consideration of the jury, the record contains sufficient evidence to justify the raising of the issue. Under the circumstances I believe that the doctrine of Jackson v. Denno (378 U. S. 368) and People v. Huntley (15 N Y 2d 72) is applicable. The court’s questions addressed to the accomplice Magennis would indicate to the mind of a juror that the Trial Justice found this witness incredible and thus the effectiveness of the only witness exonerating the defendant was destroyed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 890, 260 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bennett-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack