People v. Bothuell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bothuell

26 A.D.2d 585, 272 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3895

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

DecidedJune 27, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 585 (People v. Bothuell) 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. Bothuell, 26 A.D.2d 585, 272 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 25, 1965, convicting him of robbery and assault (both in the third degree), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence on the robbery count. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact implicit in the verdict have not been considered. The prosecutor’s reference in his opening statement to a prior identification of defendant by the complaining witness was improper (People v. Lord, 20 A D [586]*5862d 579), as was his reference to a description of defendant as the perpetrator of the crime given to the police by the complainant (cf. People v. Coffey, 11 N Y 2d 142; People v. Oliver, 4 A D 2d 28, 31, affd. 3 N Y 2d 684). We are unable to say that the case against defendant was so strong that these improprieties may be disregarded as insubstantial. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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, Kings County, rendered March 25, 1965, convicting him of robbery and assault (both in the third degree), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence on the robbery count. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact implicit in the verdict have not been considered. The prosecutor’s reference in his opening statement to a prior identification of defendant by the complaining witness was improper (People v. Lord, 20 A D [586]*5862d 579), as was his reference to a description of defendant as the perpetrator of the crime given to the police by the complainant (cf. People v. Coffey, 11 N Y 2d 142; People v. Oliver, 4 A D 2d 28, 31, affd. 3 N Y 2d 684). We are unable to say that the case against defendant was so strong that these improprieties may be disregarded as insubstantial. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 585, 272 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bothuell-nyappdiv-1966.