People v. Copeland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Copeland

12 A.D.2d 942, 210 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12874

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 942 (People v. Copeland) 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. Copeland, 12 A.D.2d 942, 210 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Queens County, rendered July 15, 1959, after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him, as a second felony [943]*943offender, to serve a term of 15 years to 40 years. Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. The District Attorney’s summation, in which he improperly sought to utilize the confession of the codefendant Williams as proof of this defendant’s guilt, deprived defendant of a fair trial. This is particularly true in view of the failure of the trial court to give clear and sufficient instructions that the Williams confession had no place in determining the guilt or innocence of this defendant. In the absence of such instructions, the jury may well have drawn the inference that the court approved of the prosecutor’s erroneous summation or acquiesced in it. In our opinion, under all the circumstances, the charge was inadequate to safeguard the right of the defendant to remain unaffected by the confession of his codefendant (People v. Lombard, 4 A D 2d 666; People v. Schwarz, 10 A D 2d 17; Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U. S. 539, 559-560). Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur; Beldoek and Ughetta, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that the errors, if any, did not affect any substantial right of the defendant (Code Crim. Pro., § 542).

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Queens County, rendered July 15, 1959, after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him, as a second felony [943]*943offender, to serve a term of 15 years to 40 years. Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. The District Attorney’s summation, in which he improperly sought to utilize the confession of the codefendant Williams as proof of this defendant’s guilt, deprived defendant of a fair trial. This is particularly true in view of the failure of the trial court to give clear and sufficient instructions that the Williams confession had no place in determining the guilt or innocence of this defendant. In the absence of such instructions, the jury may well have drawn the inference that the court approved of the prosecutor’s erroneous summation or acquiesced in it. In our opinion, under all the circumstances, the charge was inadequate to safeguard the right of the defendant to remain unaffected by the confession of his codefendant (People v. Lombard, 4 A D 2d 666; People v. Schwarz, 10 A D 2d 17; Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U. S. 539, 559-560). Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur; Beldoek and Ughetta, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that the errors, if any, did not affect any substantial right of the defendant (Code Crim. Pro., § 542).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 942, 210 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-copeland-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack