People v. Di Cicco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Di Cicco

10 A.D.2d 734, 199 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10934

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 734 (People v. Di Cicco) 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. Di Cicco, 10 A.D.2d 734, 199 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal (1) from a [735]*735judgment rendered by the County Court, Queens County, sentencing appellant, after he had been found guilty, by a jury, of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the first degree, to serve from 5 to 15 years, and (2) from every intermediate order therein made. Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered. In our opinion, appellant did not have a fair trial. The prosecutor’s repeated and continuing references to the testimony given before the Grand Jury by the witness Manuel Quinones, husband of appellant’s eodefendant, although it was apparent that he would not answer the. questions put to him, was prejudicial conduct which affected appellant’s substantial rights. The prejudice was not cured by the court’s instructions to the jury. (People v. Jackson, 7 N Y 2d 142, revg. 8 A D 2d 613; People v. Carborano, 301 N. Y. 39, 42; People v. Robinson, 273 N. Y. 438, 445.) No separate appeal lies from the intermediate orders, which have been reviewed upon the appeal from the judgment. Nolan, P. J., TJghetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal (1) from a [735]*735judgment rendered by the County Court, Queens County, sentencing appellant, after he had been found guilty, by a jury, of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the first degree, to serve from 5 to 15 years, and (2) from every intermediate order therein made. Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered. In our opinion, appellant did not have a fair trial. The prosecutor’s repeated and continuing references to the testimony given before the Grand Jury by the witness Manuel Quinones, husband of appellant’s eodefendant, although it was apparent that he would not answer the. questions put to him, was prejudicial conduct which affected appellant’s substantial rights. The prejudice was not cured by the court’s instructions to the jury. (People v. Jackson, 7 N Y 2d 142, revg. 8 A D 2d 613; People v. Carborano, 301 N. Y. 39, 42; People v. Robinson, 273 N. Y. 438, 445.) No separate appeal lies from the intermediate orders, which have been reviewed upon the appeal from the judgment. Nolan, P. J., TJghetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 734, 199 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-di-cicco-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack