People v. Duncan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Duncan

10 A.D.2d 572, 195 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11964

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 28, 1960·Published

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. In our opinion the prosecutor, in the cross-examination of defendant upon alleged collateral acts of misconduct, so exceeded the bounds of propriety as to deprive appellant of a fair trial. (See People v. McCormick, 303 N. Y. 403; People v. Carborano, 301 N. Y. 39; People v. Malkin, 250 N. Y. 185 ; People v. Lombard, 4 A D 2d 666.) While the proof is sufficient to support the verdict, we think the error was so substantial and highly prejudicial that we may not overlook it under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Valente, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. In our opinion the prosecutor, in the cross-examination of defendant upon alleged collateral acts of misconduct, so exceeded the bounds of propriety as to deprive appellant of a fair trial. (See People v. McCormick, 303 N. Y. 403; People v. Carborano, 301 N. Y. 39; People v. Malkin, 250 N. Y. 185 ; People v. Lombard, 4 A D 2d 666.) While the proof is sufficient to support the verdict, we think the error was so substantial and highly prejudicial that we may not overlook it under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Valente, JJ.

People v. Duncan, 10 A.D.2d 572, 195 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

10 A.D.2d 572 (People v. Duncan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related