People v. Geddes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Geddes

207 A.D.2d 987, 617 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10198

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 987 (People v. Geddes) 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. Geddes, 207 A.D.2d 987, 617 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing prior to defendant’s retrial requires reversal. [988]*988The People contend that reversal is not warranted because defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing conducted at his first trial and he made no request for a de novo hearing except with respect to a Federal conviction after his first trial. Regardless of whether defendant requested a de novo hearing, the Sandoval ruling rendered before the retrial differed from and was less favorable than the Sandoval ruling rendered before the first trial. Any benefit defendant may have obtained from his presence at the first hearing did not carry over to the second hearing (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 659). Because the court’s ruling prior to the retrial was not wholly favorable to defendant, reversal is required (see, People v Odiat, 82 NY2d 872, 874; People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254).

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is sufficient to support the conviction, and the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

In view of our determination, we do not reach defendant’s remaining contentions. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Elliott, J.—Rape, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant’s absence from the in-chambers Sandoval hearing prior to defendant’s retrial requires reversal. [988]*988The People contend that reversal is not warranted because defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing conducted at his first trial and he made no request for a de novo hearing except with respect to a Federal conviction after his first trial. Regardless of whether defendant requested a de novo hearing, the Sandoval ruling rendered before the retrial differed from and was less favorable than the Sandoval ruling rendered before the first trial. Any benefit defendant may have obtained from his presence at the first hearing did not carry over to the second hearing (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 659). Because the court’s ruling prior to the retrial was not wholly favorable to defendant, reversal is required (see, People v Odiat, 82 NY2d 872, 874; People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254).

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is sufficient to support the conviction, and the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

In view of our determination, we do not reach defendant’s remaining contentions. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Elliott, J.—Rape, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 987, 617 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-geddes-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack