People v. Hilbert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hilbert

25 A.D.2d 708, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4643

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 708 (People v. Hilbert) 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. Hilbert, 25 A.D.2d 708, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court. The only intent and effect

of the testimony of the police officer as to the prior identification of defendant by the complaining witness, the only witness to identify defendant, was to bolster and corroborate the testimony of that witness. It was improperly received for such purpose (People v. Trowbridge, 305 N. Y. 471) and hence was so prejudicial as to require reversal, despite defendant’s failure to object (Code Crim. Pro., § 542). It is unnecessary for us to determine the other assignments of error. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts and in the interests of justice, and a new trial ordered.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court. The only intent and effect

of the testimony of the police officer as to the prior identification of defendant by the complaining witness, the only witness to identify defendant, was to bolster and corroborate the testimony of that witness. It was improperly received for such purpose (People v. Trowbridge, 305 N. Y. 471) and hence was so prejudicial as to require reversal, despite defendant’s failure to object (Code Crim. Pro., § 542). It is unnecessary for us to determine the other assignments of error. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts and in the interests of justice, and a new trial ordered.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 708, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hilbert-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack