People v. Cole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cole

27 A.D.2d 794, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4850

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 794 (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, 27 A.D.2d 794, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted. Memorandum: Cole and Slater were jointly tried on the third count of an indictment accusing them of the crime of grand larceny, first degree. ' Before trial a Huntley hearing was held and Slater’s confession was found to have been voluntarily given. Cole, who made no incriminating statements, moved for a severance upon the ground that Slater’s confession so implicated him that a joint trial would be prejudicial. It was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion. Upon the trial Slater’s confession was redacted to eliminate Cole’s name in many places, substituting therefor an “ X ”. This did not sufficiently eliminate the resulting prejudice. (See People v. Cole, 26 A D 2d 896.) (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court convicting defendant of grand larceny first degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Yeeehio, 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: Cole and Slater were jointly tried on the third count of an indictment accusing them of the crime of grand larceny, first degree. ' Before trial a Huntley hearing was held and Slater’s confession was found to have been voluntarily given. Cole, who made no incriminating statements, moved for a severance upon the ground that Slater’s confession so implicated him that a joint trial would be prejudicial. It was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion. Upon the trial Slater’s confession was redacted to eliminate Cole’s name in many places, substituting therefor an “ X ”. This did not sufficiently eliminate the resulting prejudice. (See People v. Cole, 26 A D 2d 896.) (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court convicting defendant of grand larceny first degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Yeeehio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 794, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cole-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack