People v. Gonzales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gonzales

159 A.D.2d 721, 553 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3606

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 721 (People v. Gonzales) 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. Gonzales, 159 A.D.2d 721, 553 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered December 9, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

The trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the accom[722]*722plice corroboration rule was error (CPL 60.22 [1]). The testimony of Elizabeth Guzman, an accomplice as a matter of law (see, CPL 60.22 [2] [a]), who secured a reduced exposure to criminal liability for her cooperation, warrants reversal under the circumstances of this case. This witness’s testimony substantially contributed to the defendant’s conviction, and the proof of guilt against the defendant is less than overwhelming (see, People v Arnott, 143 AD2d 761; People v Saraireh, 134 AD2d 464; People v Strawder, 124 AD2d 758).

In view of our determination, we note that the defendant may, if he be so advised, seek a Wade hearing prior to the retrial, and we do not otherwise address the defendant’s remaining contentions. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Hooper, 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, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered December 9, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

The trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the accom[722]*722plice corroboration rule was error (CPL 60.22 [1]). The testimony of Elizabeth Guzman, an accomplice as a matter of law (see, CPL 60.22 [2] [a]), who secured a reduced exposure to criminal liability for her cooperation, warrants reversal under the circumstances of this case. This witness’s testimony substantially contributed to the defendant’s conviction, and the proof of guilt against the defendant is less than overwhelming (see, People v Arnott, 143 AD2d 761; People v Saraireh, 134 AD2d 464; People v Strawder, 124 AD2d 758).

In view of our determination, we note that the defendant may, if he be so advised, seek a Wade hearing prior to the retrial, and we do not otherwise address the defendant’s remaining contentions. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 721, 553 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gonzales-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack