People v. Freeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Freeman

279 A.D.2d 478, 718 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 169

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 478 (People v. Freeman) 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. Freeman, 279 A.D.2d 478, 718 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 169 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered April 5, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and statements he made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s motion which were to suppress identification testimony and his statements to law enforcement authorities (see, People v McIntyre, 138 AD2d 634; People v Boyd, 161 AD2d 719). However, during trial, the court erred by, in effect, advising the defendant repeatedly that a proposed affirmative defense would lead to his conviction and that there was a possibility of an acquittal if he rested without adducing any further evidence (see, People v Hills, 140 AD2d 71, 81; cf., People v Borrero, 19 NY2d 332, 335-336). Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered. Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered April 5, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and statements he made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s motion which were to suppress identification testimony and his statements to law enforcement authorities (see, People v McIntyre, 138 AD2d 634; People v Boyd, 161 AD2d 719). However, during trial, the court erred by, in effect, advising the defendant repeatedly that a proposed affirmative defense would lead to his conviction and that there was a possibility of an acquittal if he rested without adducing any further evidence (see, People v Hills, 140 AD2d 71, 81; cf., People v Borrero, 19 NY2d 332, 335-336). Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered. Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 478, 718 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-freeman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack