People v. Bennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bennett

35 A.D.2d 944, 316 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3077

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.2d 944 (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, 35 A.D.2d 944, 316 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3077 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

[945]*945Concur — Eager, J. P., Markewich, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.; McGivern, J., dissents in the following memorandum: With deference to the majority, I must dissent on the precedent of People v. Rivera, 26 N Y 2d 304 (revg. this court, 32 A D 2d 770). The same point is involved, to wit, the inadvertent disclosure of a past criminal record. In Rivera, a new trial was deemed warranted even though it was unclear the intelligence ever came to the jury’s notice. Here, there is no doubt from the record that the knowledge was brought home to the jury. A fortiori, the judgment herein must be reversed and a new trial ordered as in Rivera. The fact “ honest error ” was committed does not derogate from the rudimentary and serious quality of the error, requiring a new trial. (See, also, People v. Wiggins, 30 App. Div. 948, 949.) Moreover, I am troubled by grave doubts as to this defendant’s sanity at the time of trial. (See People v. Frampton, 31 A D 2d 551.)

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

[945]*945Concur — Eager, J. P., Markewich, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.; McGivern, J., dissents in the following memorandum: With deference to the majority, I must dissent on the precedent of People v. Rivera, 26 N Y 2d 304 (revg. this court, 32 A D 2d 770). The same point is involved, to wit, the inadvertent disclosure of a past criminal record. In Rivera, a new trial was deemed warranted even though it was unclear the intelligence ever came to the jury’s notice. Here, there is no doubt from the record that the knowledge was brought home to the jury. A fortiori, the judgment herein must be reversed and a new trial ordered as in Rivera. The fact “ honest error ” was committed does not derogate from the rudimentary and serious quality of the error, requiring a new trial. (See, also, People v. Wiggins, 30 App. Div. 948, 949.) Moreover, I am troubled by grave doubts as to this defendant’s sanity at the time of trial. (See People v. Frampton, 31 A D 2d 551.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.2d 944, 316 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bennett-nyappdiv-1970.