People v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gonzalez

24 A.D.2d 989, 265 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2878

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 989 (People v. Gonzalez) 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. Gonzalez, 24 A.D.2d 989, 265 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 21, 1964 after a jury trial, convicting him of the felonious sale of narcotics and the possession of narcotics as a misdemeanor, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. On this record, it is our opinion that the reopening of the case for further proof, after the jury had been deliberating for over three hours, coupled with the manner in which the reopened trial was conducted, constituted an improvident exercise of discretion by the trial court (cf. People v. Ferrone, 204 N. Y. 551), and that the effect of this procedure was a deprivation of defendant’s right to a fair trial. Moreover, it was error to allow the prosecutor to tell the jury in his opening and summation, over objection, that the police had had defendant under observation for several days prior to the transaction that led to his arrest, and to allow a police officer to testify to that effect, similarly over objection (see People v. Penner, 283 App. Div. 731). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Benjamin, 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, entered February 21, 1964 after a jury trial, convicting him of the felonious sale of narcotics and the possession of narcotics as a misdemeanor, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. On this record, it is our opinion that the reopening of the case for further proof, after the jury had been deliberating for over three hours, coupled with the manner in which the reopened trial was conducted, constituted an improvident exercise of discretion by the trial court (cf. People v. Ferrone, 204 N. Y. 551), and that the effect of this procedure was a deprivation of defendant’s right to a fair trial. Moreover, it was error to allow the prosecutor to tell the jury in his opening and summation, over objection, that the police had had defendant under observation for several days prior to the transaction that led to his arrest, and to allow a police officer to testify to that effect, similarly over objection (see People v. Penner, 283 App. Div. 731). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 989, 265 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gonzalez-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack