People v. Coleates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Coleates

53 A.D.2d 1018, 386 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15823

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 1018 (People v. Coleates) 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. Coleates, 53 A.D.2d 1018, 386 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for change of venue denied. Memorandum: The trial of defendant in Ontario County in April, 1976 on the charge of murder resulted in jury disagreement. The court ordered a new trial to begin on July 6, 1976. Defendant has moved before this court for change of venue on the ground that he cannot receive a fair retrial because of the newspaper publicity attendant upon the first trial, including references to defendant’s confession, its admission into evidence, the report that the jury disagreed 11 to 1 and that "the dissenting juror, a woman, clung to her belief there was reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt”. In support of his contention defendant has submitted the results of a sample survey of citizens of Ontario County, showing that one third of those interviewed had formed an opinion as to defendant’s guilt or innocence; one-fifth thought that defendant could not receive a fair retrial; and only one-sixth stated that they had no opinion or had not heard of the case. In opposition, the District Attorney submits the results of a separate survey made for him, somewhat larger than that made by defendant, which shows that 90% of those canvassed believed that defendant can receive a fair retrial in Ontario County; nearly two-thirds were unaware that the first trial ended in disagreement by the jury; and over two-thirds indicated that they had not formed an opinion as to defendant’s guilt or innocence. "It has long been settled that, to entitle a defendant to removal of a criminal action to another county because of pretrial publicity (or for any other reason), it must appear that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in the county where the indictment is pending” (People v Di Piazza, 24 NY2d 342, 347). "We are unable to conclude that the moving papers, including the survey results [submitted by both the defendant and the District Attorney], sufficiently demonstrate at the present time that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in [Ontario] County” (People v Gray, 51 AD2d 889), and we deem the application premature (People v Gray, supra; People v Hallett & Parish, 43 AD2d 793). Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Witmer, JJ.

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

Motion for change of venue denied. Memorandum: The trial of defendant in Ontario County in April, 1976 on the charge of murder resulted in jury disagreement. The court ordered a new trial to begin on July 6, 1976. Defendant has moved before this court for change of venue on the ground that he cannot receive a fair retrial because of the newspaper publicity attendant upon the first trial, including references to defendant’s confession, its admission into evidence, the report that the jury disagreed 11 to 1 and that "the dissenting juror, a woman, clung to her belief there was reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt”. In support of his contention defendant has submitted the results of a sample survey of citizens of Ontario County, showing that one third of those interviewed had formed an opinion as to defendant’s guilt or innocence; one-fifth thought that defendant could not receive a fair retrial; and only one-sixth stated that they had no opinion or had not heard of the case. In opposition, the District Attorney submits the results of a separate survey made for him, somewhat larger than that made by defendant, which shows that 90% of those canvassed believed that defendant can receive a fair retrial in Ontario County; nearly two-thirds were unaware that the first trial ended in disagreement by the jury; and over two-thirds indicated that they had not formed an opinion as to defendant’s guilt or innocence. "It has long been settled that, to entitle a defendant to removal of a criminal action to another county because of pretrial publicity (or for any other reason), it must appear that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in the county where the indictment is pending” (People v Di Piazza, 24 NY2d 342, 347). "We are unable to conclude that the moving papers, including the survey results [submitted by both the defendant and the District Attorney], sufficiently demonstrate at the present time that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in [Ontario] County” (People v Gray, 51 AD2d 889), and we deem the application premature (People v Gray, supra; People v Hallett & Parish, 43 AD2d 793). Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 1018, 386 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coleates-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack