People v. Cassidy

30 A.D.2d 795, 291 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3439
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 11, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 795 (People v. Cassidy) 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. Cassidy, 30 A.D.2d 795, 291 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

Judgments of conviction of the defendants-appellants, rendered after trial, of riot, of violations of section 1897 of the Penal Law, and of conspiracy to commit the crimes of riot and violation of section 1897 of the Penal Law, unanimously reversed, on the law, and vacated in their entirety as to the several crimes of which the defendants-appellants were convicted, and new trial granted. The admission into evidence, at the joint trial, of oral and in some cases written extra-judicial statements of each of several defendants tending to incriminate codefendants violated the rights of said codefendants and requires a new trial. In the circumstances of this case, the instructions limiting the consideration by the jury of the incriminating statements could not reasonably operate to dispel the prejudice to codefendants resulting from the receipt of such evidence which was hearsay as to them. (See Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123; Roberts v. Russell, 392 U. S. 293; People v. Burrelle, 21 N Y 2d 265.) Furthermore, a new trial as to defendant Joachim is required on the ground that, in the circumstances of this case, his right to the assistance of counsel on the trial was improperly denied. (See People v. Koch, 299 N. Y. 378; see, also, Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60; People v. McLaughlin, 291 N. Y. 480.) Finally, insofar as the appeal brings up for review the order or decision denying defendants’ motion to suppress certain evidence seized in a search of defendant Joachim’s truck, we conclude that the same should be and is unanimously affirmed. Concur— Stevens, J. P., Eager, Capozzoli, McGivern and McNally, JJ.

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

Related

People v. DeVine
57 Misc. 2d 862 (New York Supreme Court, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.2d 795, 291 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cassidy-nyappdiv-1968.