People v. Grinage

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grinage

52 A.D.2d 768, 382 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12533

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

DecidedMay 6, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 768 (People v. Grinage) 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. Grinage, 52 A.D.2d 768, 382 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County, each rendered April 15, 1974 convicting both defendants after jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law, § 220.39) as modified with respect to defendant Eddie Meeks by resentence on October 9, 1975 under section 60.08 of the Penal Law, unanimously reversed as to both defendants, on the law, on the facts and in the interest of justice, and a new trial directed. The District Attorney’s summation was inflammatory and the District Attorney did not heed the Trial Judge’s direction to discontinue the objectionable statement. The Trial Judge’s charge removed from the jury’s consideration proper evidentiary elements of the defense of entrapment. Entrapment was defendant Grinage’s sole defense. And while defendant Meeks was not relying on entrapment but rather on general denial, defendant Meeks would have been entitled to an acquittal if defendant Grinage were acquitted on the ground of entrapment, so that the error in the charge of entrapment also prejudiced Meeks. These along with other incidents we think deprived defendants of a fair trial. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy, Silverman and Nunez, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County, each rendered April 15, 1974 convicting both defendants after jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law, § 220.39) as modified with respect to defendant Eddie Meeks by resentence on October 9, 1975 under section 60.08 of the Penal Law, unanimously reversed as to both defendants, on the law, on the facts and in the interest of justice, and a new trial directed. The District Attorney’s summation was inflammatory and the District Attorney did not heed the Trial Judge’s direction to discontinue the objectionable statement. The Trial Judge’s charge removed from the jury’s consideration proper evidentiary elements of the defense of entrapment. Entrapment was defendant Grinage’s sole defense. And while defendant Meeks was not relying on entrapment but rather on general denial, defendant Meeks would have been entitled to an acquittal if defendant Grinage were acquitted on the ground of entrapment, so that the error in the charge of entrapment also prejudiced Meeks. These along with other incidents we think deprived defendants of a fair trial. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy, Silverman and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 768, 382 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-grinage-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack