People v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harris

44 A.D.2d 809, 355 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4948

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

DecidedMay 21, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 A.D.2d 809 (People v. Harris) 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. Harris, 44 A.D.2d 809, 355 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered January 22, 1973 convicting defendant after a jury trial of the crimes of burglary in the second degree and robbery in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of not less than 5 nor more than 15 years, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the interest of justice, and a, new trial directed before another Judge. In our opinion, the record clearly demonstrates that defendant was not accorded a fair and impartial trial. Throughout the trial, the court unduly interjected itself into the proceedings, examining witnesses, .including defendant, with prosecutorial zeal: making [810]*810personal comments upon the testimony; expressing impatience with the matter in which defense counsel was proceeding; and generally conveying to the jury the court’s “attitude * * 9 both in respect to the merits of the case and to the credibility of the witnesses.” (People v. Shenk, 181 App. Div. 753, 758.) In addition, it was highly prejudicial to permit one of the complaining witnesses to testify while holding her infant child in her arms. Under these circumstances, a new trial is required. (People v. Mendes, 3 N Y 2d 120; People v. Ohanian, 245 N. Y. 227; People v. Smith, 44 A D 2d —; People v. Sostre, 37 A D 2d 574; People v. Farrell, 7 A D 2d 642.) In view of the direction for a new trial, we do not find it necessary to consider the other claims of error. Concur-—-Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered January 22, 1973 convicting defendant after a jury trial of the crimes of burglary in the second degree and robbery in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of not less than 5 nor more than 15 years, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the interest of justice, and a, new trial directed before another Judge. In our opinion, the record clearly demonstrates that defendant was not accorded a fair and impartial trial. Throughout the trial, the court unduly interjected itself into the proceedings, examining witnesses, .including defendant, with prosecutorial zeal: making [810]*810personal comments upon the testimony; expressing impatience with the matter in which defense counsel was proceeding; and generally conveying to the jury the court’s “attitude * * 9 both in respect to the merits of the case and to the credibility of the witnesses.” (People v. Shenk, 181 App. Div. 753, 758.) In addition, it was highly prejudicial to permit one of the complaining witnesses to testify while holding her infant child in her arms. Under these circumstances, a new trial is required. (People v. Mendes, 3 N Y 2d 120; People v. Ohanian, 245 N. Y. 227; People v. Smith, 44 A D 2d —; People v. Sostre, 37 A D 2d 574; People v. Farrell, 7 A D 2d 642.) In view of the direction for a new trial, we do not find it necessary to consider the other claims of error. Concur-—-Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 809, 355 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harris-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack