People v. Genyard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Genyard

254 A.D.2d 497, 679 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11224

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 497 (People v. Genyard) 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. Genyard, 254 A.D.2d 497, 679 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered November 9, 1995, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

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

The trial court improperly instructed the jury concerning the defendant’s status as an interested witness. The court improperly charged that the defendant had a “deep personal interest as a result of his prosecution”, that the “interest is of a character possessed by no other witness”, and that the interest “may create a motive to give false testimony” (see, People v Isidron, 209 AD2d 718; People v Williams, 197 AD2d 721; People v Martinez, 186 AD2d 153). “This error was particularly prejudicial and warrants reversal of the defendant’s conviction, since the primary issue to be resolved by the jury was a direct conflict between the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and the testimony of the defendant” (People v Isidron, supra, at 719; see, People v Ochs, 3 NY2d 54).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, 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, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered November 9, 1995, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

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

The trial court improperly instructed the jury concerning the defendant’s status as an interested witness. The court improperly charged that the defendant had a “deep personal interest as a result of his prosecution”, that the “interest is of a character possessed by no other witness”, and that the interest “may create a motive to give false testimony” (see, People v Isidron, 209 AD2d 718; People v Williams, 197 AD2d 721; People v Martinez, 186 AD2d 153). “This error was particularly prejudicial and warrants reversal of the defendant’s conviction, since the primary issue to be resolved by the jury was a direct conflict between the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and the testimony of the defendant” (People v Isidron, supra, at 719; see, People v Ochs, 3 NY2d 54).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 497, 679 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-genyard-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack