People v. Carr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carr

23 A.D.2d 670, 257 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4730

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 670 (People v. Carr) 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. Carr, 23 A.D.2d 670, 257 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 8, 1963 after a jury trial, convicting him of the violation of the Public Health Law with respect to narcotic drugs, as a felony and as a misdemeanor (Penal Law, §§ 1751, 1751-a), and imposing sentence upon him as a second felony offender. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict have not been considered. As in People v. Phonveille (22 A D 2d 814, 815), we think that under the facts and circumstances here presented, the trial court committed reversible error by reason of the limitations which it placed upon defendant’s cross-examination of Officer Waterman with respect to a previous purchase of narcotics made on July 10, 1962. As stated in the Phonveille ease (supra): “ On cross-examination of such a witness, the defendant should be given wide scope in probing his- credibility with respect to the most relevant issue in the case (People v. Ramistella, 306 N. Y. 379; People v. Boras, 9 A D 2d 920).” Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, 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, entered April 8, 1963 after a jury trial, convicting him of the violation of the Public Health Law with respect to narcotic drugs, as a felony and as a misdemeanor (Penal Law, §§ 1751, 1751-a), and imposing sentence upon him as a second felony offender. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict have not been considered. As in People v. Phonveille (22 A D 2d 814, 815), we think that under the facts and circumstances here presented, the trial court committed reversible error by reason of the limitations which it placed upon defendant’s cross-examination of Officer Waterman with respect to a previous purchase of narcotics made on July 10, 1962. As stated in the Phonveille ease (supra): “ On cross-examination of such a witness, the defendant should be given wide scope in probing his- credibility with respect to the most relevant issue in the case (People v. Ramistella, 306 N. Y. 379; People v. Boras, 9 A D 2d 920).” Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 670, 257 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carr-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack