People v. Hagen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hagen

86 A.D.2d 617, 446 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15156

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 86 A.D.2d 617 (People v. Hagen) 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. Hagen, 86 A.D.2d 617, 446 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.), rendered October 19, 1979, convicting her of [618]*618manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. During cross-examination of defendant, the trial court ordered an overnight recess. At that time, the court gave the following instruction: “I’m instructing you not to discuss with this witness, Mr. Jacobs [defendant’s counsel], her testimony in any manner, shape or form, and I do not think that I am depriving her of her right to counsel. She’s on the stand. She’s being cross-examined, and I’m instructing you not to do it.” Though defendant’s counsel objected to the directive, he stated that he would obey it. We believe that such instruction violated defendant’s constitutional right to assistance of counsel (see Geders v United States, 425 US 80; People v Narayan, 54 NY2d 106). Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Bracken, 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 (Kooper, J.), rendered October 19, 1979, convicting her of [618]*618manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. During cross-examination of defendant, the trial court ordered an overnight recess. At that time, the court gave the following instruction: “I’m instructing you not to discuss with this witness, Mr. Jacobs [defendant’s counsel], her testimony in any manner, shape or form, and I do not think that I am depriving her of her right to counsel. She’s on the stand. She’s being cross-examined, and I’m instructing you not to do it.” Though defendant’s counsel objected to the directive, he stated that he would obey it. We believe that such instruction violated defendant’s constitutional right to assistance of counsel (see Geders v United States, 425 US 80; People v Narayan, 54 NY2d 106). Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 617, 446 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hagen-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack