People v. Caramante

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Caramante

32 A.D.2d 821, 302 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3707

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

DecidedJune 18, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 821 (People v. Caramante) 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. Caramante, 32 A.D.2d 821, 302 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered April 30, 1965, convicting defendant of burglary and robbery, both in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted. The findings of fact below are affirmed. During the direct examination of the complainant, she was permitted to testify over objection that she had previously identified defendant from pictures shown to her by the police. A police officer was later permitted to testify that he had observed the complainant make such identification. This testimony was a clear violation of section 393-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see People v. Caserta, 19 N Y 2d 18; People v. Cioffi, 1 N Y 2d 70). Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered April 30, 1965, convicting defendant of burglary and robbery, both in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted. The findings of fact below are affirmed. During the direct examination of the complainant, she was permitted to testify over objection that she had previously identified defendant from pictures shown to her by the police. A police officer was later permitted to testify that he had observed the complainant make such identification. This testimony was a clear violation of section 393-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see People v. Caserta, 19 N Y 2d 18; People v. Cioffi, 1 N Y 2d 70). Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 821, 302 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-caramante-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack