People v. Gregory R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gregory R.

34 A.D.2d 829, 312 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4711

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

DecidedMay 25, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 829 (People v. Gregory R.) 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. Gregory R., 34 A.D.2d 829, 312 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered September 18, 1968, which adjudicated him a youthful offender, after a nonjury trial, and committed him to a reformatory term. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and youthful offender information dismissed. In our view, the People failed to prove defendant guilty of acts which would constitute burglary and larceny beyond a reasonable doubt and, accordingly, the adjudication cannot be sustained. The People’s evidence was primarily circumstantial in nature and wholly insufficient to establish defendant’s participation in the crime to a moral certainty (see People v. Cleague, 22 N Y 2d 363). Even if we were not dismissing the information, a new trial before a jury would have had to be held as defendant was unconstitutionally required to consent to a trial without a jury in order to qualify for youthful offender treatment (People v. Michael A. C. [Anonymous], 32 A D 2d 554). Christ, P. J., Latham, Kleinfeld, Brennan 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 County Court, Nassau County, rendered September 18, 1968, which adjudicated him a youthful offender, after a nonjury trial, and committed him to a reformatory term. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and youthful offender information dismissed. In our view, the People failed to prove defendant guilty of acts which would constitute burglary and larceny beyond a reasonable doubt and, accordingly, the adjudication cannot be sustained. The People’s evidence was primarily circumstantial in nature and wholly insufficient to establish defendant’s participation in the crime to a moral certainty (see People v. Cleague, 22 N Y 2d 363). Even if we were not dismissing the information, a new trial before a jury would have had to be held as defendant was unconstitutionally required to consent to a trial without a jury in order to qualify for youthful offender treatment (People v. Michael A. C. [Anonymous], 32 A D 2d 554). Christ, P. J., Latham, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 829, 312 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gregory-r-nyappdiv-1970.