People v. Cender

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Cender

219 N.E.2d 200, 18 N.Y.2d 610, 272 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1197

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 7, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 N.E.2d 200 (People v. Cender) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Cender, 219 N.E.2d 200, 18 N.Y.2d 610, 272 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1197 (N.Y. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant was tried with a codefendant and was implicated by name in the latter’s confession which was received into evidence. Since this confession was held by the Appellate Division to be inadmissible and a new trial was ordered as to the codefendant, the Appellate Division should also have reversed this defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial in the interests of justice. (See, e.g., People v. Morgan, 17 N Y 2d 696; People v. Donovan, 13 N Y 2d 148, 154; People v. Robinson, 13 N Y 2d 296; People v. Rodriguez, 11 N Y 2d 279, 285; People v. Noble, 9 N Y 2d 571, 575; People v. Waterman, 9 N Y 2d 561, 567; People v. Abel, 298 N. Y. 333; People v. Rudish, 294 N. Y. 500.)

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Bueke, Beegan and Keating concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judges Van Yooehis and Scileppi dissent and vote to affirm. (People v. Pugach, 16 N Y 2d 504; People v. McCall, 17 N Y 2d 152.)

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant was tried with a codefendant and was implicated by name in the latter’s confession which was received into evidence. Since this confession was held by the Appellate Division to be inadmissible and a new trial was ordered as to the codefendant, the Appellate Division should also have reversed this defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial in the interests of justice. (See, e.g., People v. Morgan, 17 N Y 2d 696; People v. Donovan, 13 N Y 2d 148, 154; People v. Robinson, 13 N Y 2d 296; People v. Rodriguez, 11 N Y 2d 279, 285; People v. Noble, 9 N Y 2d 571, 575; People v. Waterman, 9 N Y 2d 561, 567; People v. Abel, 298 N. Y. 333; People v. Rudish, 294 N. Y. 500.)

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Bueke, Beegan and Keating concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judges Van Yooehis and Scileppi dissent and vote to affirm. (People v. Pugach, 16 N Y 2d 504; People v. McCall, 17 N Y 2d 152.)

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 N.E.2d 200, 18 N.Y.2d 610, 272 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cender-ny-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack