People v. Hawley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hawley

285 A.D. 1009, 139 N.Y.S.2d 489

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 285 A.D. 1009 (People v. Hawley) 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. Hawley, 285 A.D. 1009, 139 N.Y.S.2d 489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and a new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of larceny (Penal Law, § 1293-a). While we consider the evidence sufficient to sustain the judgment, numerous errors were committed during the trial which, taken together, require a reversal. It was error to permit the assistant district attorney repeatedly to ask questions, both of defendant and of the officers who arrested him, designed to impress upon the jury the fact that defendant refused to co-operate with the officers or to answer their questions. (People v. Rutigliano, 261 N. Y. 103; People v. Infantino, 224 App. Div. 193; People v. Hyman, 284 App. Div. 347, affd. 308 N. Y. 794; People v. Mleczko, 298 N. Y. 153.) As the trial court correctly instructed the jury, defendant was under no duty to answer questions while under arrest. We also regard the cross-examination of defendant as unjustifiably broad. It was error for the assistant district attorney to ask defendant whether he had not twice been in jail, whether a certain individual “might have been a fellow inmate of yours at Attica”, and whether defendant had not once pleaded guilty to public intoxication. The assistant district attorney on one occasion improperly pursued a collateral matter after a binding answer had been given, and another collateral question could have had no basis in fact. The prosecution rested heavily upon the inference to be drawn from defendant’s recent and exclusive possession of the stolen vehicle, and it was vital to him that his credibility be fairly judged. Under the circumstances, we think the cross-examination presents reversible error. (People v. Joyce, 233 N. Y. 61, 71; People v. Perry, 277 N. Y. 460; People v. Slover, 232 N. Y. 264, 268; People v. Buzzi, 238 N. Y. 390, 402.) All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Onondaga County Court, convicting defendant of the crime of grand larceny, second degree.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Kimball, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

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

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and a new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of larceny (Penal Law, § 1293-a). While we consider the evidence sufficient to sustain the judgment, numerous errors were committed during the trial which, taken together, require a reversal. It was error to permit the assistant district attorney repeatedly to ask questions, both of defendant and of the officers who arrested him, designed to impress upon the jury the fact that defendant refused to co-operate with the officers or to answer their questions. (People v. Rutigliano, 261 N. Y. 103; People v. Infantino, 224 App. Div. 193; People v. Hyman, 284 App. Div. 347, affd. 308 N. Y. 794; People v. Mleczko, 298 N. Y. 153.) As the trial court correctly instructed the jury, defendant was under no duty to answer questions while under arrest. We also regard the cross-examination of defendant as unjustifiably broad. It was error for the assistant district attorney to ask defendant whether he had not twice been in jail, whether a certain individual “might have been a fellow inmate of yours at Attica”, and whether defendant had not once pleaded guilty to public intoxication. The assistant district attorney on one occasion improperly pursued a collateral matter after a binding answer had been given, and another collateral question could have had no basis in fact. The prosecution rested heavily upon the inference to be drawn from defendant’s recent and exclusive possession of the stolen vehicle, and it was vital to him that his credibility be fairly judged. Under the circumstances, we think the cross-examination presents reversible error. (People v. Joyce, 233 N. Y. 61, 71; People v. Perry, 277 N. Y. 460; People v. Slover, 232 N. Y. 264, 268; People v. Buzzi, 238 N. Y. 390, 402.) All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Onondaga County Court, convicting defendant of the crime of grand larceny, second degree.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Kimball, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1009, 139 N.Y.S.2d 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hawley-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack