People v. Franklin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Franklin

48 A.D.2d 931, 369 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10216

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

DecidedJune 30, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 931 (People v. Franklin) 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. Franklin, 48 A.D.2d 931, 369 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 22, 1973, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts) and grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury [932]*932verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. One of the complaining witnesses was under indictment on a charge unrelated to this prosecution. During the testimony of this witness, the trial court permitted the attorney representing him in the other matter to sit at the counsel table with the Assistant District Attorney and to object to questions put to the witness on cross-examination. As it was error for the trial court to permit such participation, a new trial should be had. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Brennan and Munder, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 22, 1973, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts) and grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury [932]*932verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. One of the complaining witnesses was under indictment on a charge unrelated to this prosecution. During the testimony of this witness, the trial court permitted the attorney representing him in the other matter to sit at the counsel table with the Assistant District Attorney and to object to questions put to the witness on cross-examination. As it was error for the trial court to permit such participation, a new trial should be had. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 931, 369 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-franklin-nyappdiv-1975.