People v. De Pina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. De Pina

18 A.D.2d 681, 235 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6497

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 681 (People v. De Pina) 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. De Pina, 18 A.D.2d 681, 235 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered May 12, 1958 after a jury trial, convicting him of forgery and grand larceny, both in the second degree, and sentencing him to serve a term of 5 to 10 years. Judgment affirmed. Although we do not condone the practice here adopted by the trial court of interrogating a witness in the absence of the jury (cf. People v. Randazzio, 194 N. Y. 147, 159), it may not be said on this record that defendant’s rights were prejudiced thereby (cf. Code Grim. Pro., § 542; People v. Kingston, 8 N Y 2d 384, 387). Virtually the same testimony was elicited from the witness after the jury returned to the courtroom as had been elicited during its absence. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, 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 former County Court, Kings County, rendered May 12, 1958 after a jury trial, convicting him of forgery and grand larceny, both in the second degree, and sentencing him to serve a term of 5 to 10 years. Judgment affirmed. Although we do not condone the practice here adopted by the trial court of interrogating a witness in the absence of the jury (cf. People v. Randazzio, 194 N. Y. 147, 159), it may not be said on this record that defendant’s rights were prejudiced thereby (cf. Code Grim. Pro., § 542; People v. Kingston, 8 N Y 2d 384, 387). Virtually the same testimony was elicited from the witness after the jury returned to the courtroom as had been elicited during its absence. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 681, 235 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-de-pina-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack