People v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hill

30 A.D.2d 976, 294 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3155

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 976 (People v. Hill) 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. Hill, 30 A.D.2d 976, 294 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the County Court, Nassau County, entered February 29, 1968, affirmed. The only allegation in the petition which would entitle appellant to coram nobis relief, if proved, was that the complaining witness had said off the record that he could not identify appellant as one of the men who robbed him and that the District Attorney, knowing of these statements, intentionally or unintentionally suppressed this evidence favorable to appellant. We can and do take judicial notice of the record on appeal in this court in People v. Ferguson (26 A D 2d 772) and People v. Duff (26 A D 2d 772) (Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 30, and cases cited there). Appellant was tried together with Ferguson and Duff. The trial minutes establish that the complaining witness testified that he could not identify appellant as one of the men who had held him up. That record conclusively refutes appellant’s claim. There is no obligation to assign counsel to assist in the prosecution of specious issues (People ex rel. Williams v. La Vallee, 19 N Y 2d 238, 241). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the County Court, Nassau County, entered February 29, 1968, affirmed. The only allegation in the petition which would entitle appellant to coram nobis relief, if proved, was that the complaining witness had said off the record that he could not identify appellant as one of the men who robbed him and that the District Attorney, knowing of these statements, intentionally or unintentionally suppressed this evidence favorable to appellant. We can and do take judicial notice of the record on appeal in this court in People v. Ferguson (26 A D 2d 772) and People v. Duff (26 A D 2d 772) (Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 30, and cases cited there). Appellant was tried together with Ferguson and Duff. The trial minutes establish that the complaining witness testified that he could not identify appellant as one of the men who had held him up. That record conclusively refutes appellant’s claim. There is no obligation to assign counsel to assist in the prosecution of specious issues (People ex rel. Williams v. La Vallee, 19 N Y 2d 238, 241). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 976, 294 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hill-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack