People v. Grimes

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Grimes

324 N.E.2d 365, 35 N.Y.2d 908, 364 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1071

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 324 N.E.2d 365 (People v. Grimes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Grimes, 324 N.E.2d 365, 35 N.Y.2d 908, 364 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1071 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.

[910]*910Assuming that under the combined rules of People v. McGuire (5 N Y 2d 523) and People v. Moyer (27 N Y 2d 252) it was necessary for the criminal information under which defendant was tried to contain a separate count of harassment or specific allegation of an'intent to harass, the rules were satisfied by the trial amendment. True, the amendment was made over objection, but in light of the intimate relation between the assault charge and a harassment the amendment was properly allowed. The trial evidence demonstrated beyond a doubt that the charges of harassment and assault were factually inseparable. While the same might have been said of the evidence in the Moyer case (supra), nevertheless, the information in that case, according to the majority there, failed analytically to include implicitly an intent to harass.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, G-abrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Babin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.

[910]*910Assuming that under the combined rules of People v. McGuire (5 N Y 2d 523) and People v. Moyer (27 N Y 2d 252) it was necessary for the criminal information under which defendant was tried to contain a separate count of harassment or specific allegation of an'intent to harass, the rules were satisfied by the trial amendment. True, the amendment was made over objection, but in light of the intimate relation between the assault charge and a harassment the amendment was properly allowed. The trial evidence demonstrated beyond a doubt that the charges of harassment and assault were factually inseparable. While the same might have been said of the evidence in the Moyer case (supra), nevertheless, the information in that case, according to the majority there, failed analytically to include implicitly an intent to harass.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, G-abrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Babin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 N.E.2d 365, 35 N.Y.2d 908, 364 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-grimes-ny-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack