People v. Cole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cole

26 A.D.2d 896, 274 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3381

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 896 (People v. Cole) 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. Cole, 26 A.D.2d 896, 274 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant Cole and two others had been jointly indicted. A preliminary hearing was held to determine the voluntariness of statements made by Cole’s codefendants. No statement had been made by Cole. It appeared on the hearing that the confessions of the eodefendants seriously implicated Cole in the crimes charged and that the references to him could not be effectively redacted to eliminate resulting prejudice. Cole’s motion for a severance, on the ground that it would be highly prejudicial for him to stand trial together with the codefendants, was denied. This was an abuse of discretion. (See People v. Robinson, 16 A D 2d 184; People v. Feolo, 282 N. Y. 276.) (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court convicting defendant of burglary, third degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant Cole and two others had been jointly indicted. A preliminary hearing was held to determine the voluntariness of statements made by Cole’s codefendants. No statement had been made by Cole. It appeared on the hearing that the confessions of the eodefendants seriously implicated Cole in the crimes charged and that the references to him could not be effectively redacted to eliminate resulting prejudice. Cole’s motion for a severance, on the ground that it would be highly prejudicial for him to stand trial together with the codefendants, was denied. This was an abuse of discretion. (See People v. Robinson, 16 A D 2d 184; People v. Feolo, 282 N. Y. 276.) (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court convicting defendant of burglary, third degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 896, 274 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cole-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack