People v. Hayes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hayes

85 A.D.2d 892, 446 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16729

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 A.D.2d 892 (People v. Hayes) 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. Hayes, 85 A.D.2d 892, 446 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial granted. Memorandum: The People’s witness Smith was a participant in the incident from which this robbery charge against defendant arose and he had pleaded guilty to robbery, third degree, in connection with the crime before defendant was indicted. It was error, therefore, for the court to fail to charge, over defendant’s objection, that Smith was an accomplice, as a matter of law, whose testimony required corroboration (see People v Bell, 48 NY2d 933; People v Minarich, 46 NY2d 970; People v "Werner, 55 AD2d 317). The People concede that the charge was erroneous but contend that the error was harmless. We are satisfied that in this case the error requires reversal. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court, Barr, J. — robbery, second degree.) Present ■— Simons, J. P., Callahan, Denman, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial granted. Memorandum: The People’s witness Smith was a participant in the incident from which this robbery charge against defendant arose and he had pleaded guilty to robbery, third degree, in connection with the crime before defendant was indicted. It was error, therefore, for the court to fail to charge, over defendant’s objection, that Smith was an accomplice, as a matter of law, whose testimony required corroboration (see People v Bell, 48 NY2d 933; People v Minarich, 46 NY2d 970; People v "Werner, 55 AD2d 317). The People concede that the charge was erroneous but contend that the error was harmless. We are satisfied that in this case the error requires reversal. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court, Barr, J. — robbery, second degree.) Present ■— Simons, J. P., Callahan, Denman, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.2d 892, 446 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hayes-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack