People v. Di Masi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Di Masi

15 A.D.2d 823, 225 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11272

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 823 (People v. Di Masi) 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 Masi, 15 A.D.2d 823, 225 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant contends, inter alia, that the introduction into evidence of a codefendant’s statement inculpating him was prejudicial and deprived him of a fair trial, even though the trial court thereafter instructed the jury that the statement was binding upon the declarant only, and not binding upon the defendant (cf. People v. Lombard, 4 A D 2d 666; People v. Copeland, 12 A D 2d 942; People v. Schwarz, 10 A D 2d 17; People v. Feolo, 282 N. Y. 276; People v. La Ruffa, 2 A D 2d 765). We do not now pass upon the merits of this contention since we believe that in any event, under all the circumstances, a new trial should be had in the interests of justice. Upon the new trial the trial court will be in a better position, in the light of the authorities cited, to determine the admissibility of [824]*824any evidence which may be adduced with respect to said codefendant’s statement. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

Defendant contends, inter alia, that the introduction into evidence of a codefendant’s statement inculpating him was prejudicial and deprived him of a fair trial, even though the trial court thereafter instructed the jury that the statement was binding upon the declarant only, and not binding upon the defendant (cf. People v. Lombard, 4 A D 2d 666; People v. Copeland, 12 A D 2d 942; People v. Schwarz, 10 A D 2d 17; People v. Feolo, 282 N. Y. 276; People v. La Ruffa, 2 A D 2d 765). We do not now pass upon the merits of this contention since we believe that in any event, under all the circumstances, a new trial should be had in the interests of justice. Upon the new trial the trial court will be in a better position, in the light of the authorities cited, to determine the admissibility of [824]*824any evidence which may be adduced with respect to said codefendant’s statement. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 823, 225 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-di-masi-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack