People v. Donohue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Donohue

12 A.D.2d 943, 210 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12875

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 943 (People v. Donohue) 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. Donohue, 12 A.D.2d 943, 210 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, rendered June 2, 1960, convicting him of violation of section 1140 of the Penal Law, and suspending sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered. On the evidence adduced a close question of fact was presented as to the identity of the person who had committed the crime. In support of the complainants’ evidence the arresting officer was permitted to testify that at the time of the arrest both complainants had identified the defendant. The admission of such testimony by the officer was error. In our opinion, under the circumstances here disclosed, such error requires reversal in the interest of justice, even though there was no objection to the officer’s testimony when it was received (cf. People v. De Jesus, 11 A D 2d 711, 712, and cases cited). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, 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 Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, rendered June 2, 1960, convicting him of violation of section 1140 of the Penal Law, and suspending sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered. On the evidence adduced a close question of fact was presented as to the identity of the person who had committed the crime. In support of the complainants’ evidence the arresting officer was permitted to testify that at the time of the arrest both complainants had identified the defendant. The admission of such testimony by the officer was error. In our opinion, under the circumstances here disclosed, such error requires reversal in the interest of justice, even though there was no objection to the officer’s testimony when it was received (cf. People v. De Jesus, 11 A D 2d 711, 712, and cases cited). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 943, 210 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-donohue-nyappdiv-1961.