People v. Coston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Coston

77 A.D.2d 908, 431 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12693

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

DecidedAugust 11, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 A.D.2d 908 (People v. Coston) 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. Coston, 77 A.D.2d 908, 431 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered July 25, 1977, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Case remitted to Criminal Term to hear and report on the disposition at defendant’s first trial of the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. Criminal Term is to file its report with all convenient speed. In a three-count indictment, defendant was charged with robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. All charges arose out of the same incident involving defendant and another person. Defendant’s first trial ended in jury disagreement. With respect thereto, the record contains the following notation: "Prior to sumation [sic] court submitted count #1—robb 1st & robb 2nd—count #2—assault—count #3 not to be considered” (emphasis supplied). Defendant was then retried under the original indictment and convicted of all three offenses. On this appeal, he maintains, inter alia, that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States barred a second trial on the charge of criminal possession of a weapon and that, as a result, his conviction for that crime must be reversed. CPL 310.60 (subd 2) provides that a defendant may be retried under the original indictment following the declaration of a mistrial and that "Upon such retrial, the indictment is deemed to contain all the counts which it contained at the time the previous [909]*909trial was commenced, regardless of whether any count was dismissed by the court in the course of such trial” (accord CPL 280.20). However, these statutes are valid only as to counts dismissed on grounds that do not preclude reprosecution (People v Mayo, 48 NY2d 245, 248, n 1). The record as presently constituted does not disclose whether the court issued a trial order of dismissal as to the weapon possession count (see People v Zagarino, 74 AD2d 115) or simply failed to submit that charge to the jury (CPL 300.40, subd 3, par [a]). Nor is there any detail as to the ground or grounds for the trial court’s disposition, or the circumstances under which the court acted. Therefore, a hearing is required. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered July 25, 1977, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Case remitted to Criminal Term to hear and report on the disposition at defendant’s first trial of the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. Criminal Term is to file its report with all convenient speed. In a three-count indictment, defendant was charged with robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. All charges arose out of the same incident involving defendant and another person. Defendant’s first trial ended in jury disagreement. With respect thereto, the record contains the following notation: "Prior to sumation [sic] court submitted count #1—robb 1st & robb 2nd—count #2—assault—count #3 not to be considered” (emphasis supplied). Defendant was then retried under the original indictment and convicted of all three offenses. On this appeal, he maintains, inter alia, that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States barred a second trial on the charge of criminal possession of a weapon and that, as a result, his conviction for that crime must be reversed. CPL 310.60 (subd 2) provides that a defendant may be retried under the original indictment following the declaration of a mistrial and that "Upon such retrial, the indictment is deemed to contain all the counts which it contained at the time the previous [909]*909trial was commenced, regardless of whether any count was dismissed by the court in the course of such trial” (accord CPL 280.20). However, these statutes are valid only as to counts dismissed on grounds that do not preclude reprosecution (People v Mayo, 48 NY2d 245, 248, n 1). The record as presently constituted does not disclose whether the court issued a trial order of dismissal as to the weapon possession count (see People v Zagarino, 74 AD2d 115) or simply failed to submit that charge to the jury (CPL 300.40, subd 3, par [a]). Nor is there any detail as to the ground or grounds for the trial court’s disposition, or the circumstances under which the court acted. Therefore, a hearing is required. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.2d 908, 431 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coston-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack