People v. Cender

219 N.E.2d 200, 18 N.Y.2d 610, 272 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1197
New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 7, 1966·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

219 N.E.2d 200 (People v. Cender) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Johnson
81 A.D.2d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)