People v. Bowen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bowen

32 A.D.2d 926, 302 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3475

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 926 (People v. Bowen) 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. Bowen, 32 A.D.2d 926, 302 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 7,1968, reversed, on the law, and a new trial granted in the interests of justice. The findings of fact below are affirmed. Although there were sharp issues of fact concerning the circumstances under which defendant was found by the police at the burglarized premises, we are of the opinion that the People’s evidence, which the jury apparently credited, is sufficient to support the conviction herein. Nevertheless, we are constrained to reverse the judgment and to order a new trial in the interests of justice because of the pos[927]*927sibility that defendant was unduly prejudiced by certain remarks directed to defense counsel by the Trial Justice, in the presence and hearing of the jury. Whether or not provoked by counsel, these remarks were unnecessarily personal and harsh and should not, in any event, have been made in the jury’s presence. “ The development of the facts in the presence of a jury so far as is humanly possible should be uncomplicated by personalities and acrimony” (Buckley v. 2570 Broadway Corp., 12 A D 2d 473). This admonition applies a fortiori to the trial of criminal actions, wherein liberty is at stake. Christ, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Munder, J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 7,1968, reversed, on the law, and a new trial granted in the interests of justice. The findings of fact below are affirmed. Although there were sharp issues of fact concerning the circumstances under which defendant was found by the police at the burglarized premises, we are of the opinion that the People’s evidence, which the jury apparently credited, is sufficient to support the conviction herein. Nevertheless, we are constrained to reverse the judgment and to order a new trial in the interests of justice because of the pos[927]*927sibility that defendant was unduly prejudiced by certain remarks directed to defense counsel by the Trial Justice, in the presence and hearing of the jury. Whether or not provoked by counsel, these remarks were unnecessarily personal and harsh and should not, in any event, have been made in the jury’s presence. “ The development of the facts in the presence of a jury so far as is humanly possible should be uncomplicated by personalities and acrimony” (Buckley v. 2570 Broadway Corp., 12 A D 2d 473). This admonition applies a fortiori to the trial of criminal actions, wherein liberty is at stake. Christ, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Munder, J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 926, 302 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bowen-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack