People v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hill

44 A.D.2d 813, 355 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4955

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

DecidedMay 21, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 44 A.D.2d 813 (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, 44 A.D.2d 813, 355 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered October 18,1972, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of possession of a weapon as a felony, unanimously reversed on the law and in the interest of justice and the case remanded for a new trial. Examination of the record herein reveals that the supplemental charge to the jury was coercive in that the deadlocked jury was instructed that it had 10 minutes to arrive at a verdict or, failing thereat, be sequestered in a hotel overnight (see People v. Riley, 20 A D 2d 599). The People on the argument of the appeal did not seriously dispute this contention. In view of this disposition, the court does not consider the remaining issues raised by appellant. Concur—McGivern, P. J., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Lynch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered October 18,1972, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of possession of a weapon as a felony, unanimously reversed on the law and in the interest of justice and the case remanded for a new trial. Examination of the record herein reveals that the supplemental charge to the jury was coercive in that the deadlocked jury was instructed that it had 10 minutes to arrive at a verdict or, failing thereat, be sequestered in a hotel overnight (see People v. Riley, 20 A D 2d 599). The People on the argument of the appeal did not seriously dispute this contention. In view of this disposition, the court does not consider the remaining issues raised by appellant. Concur—McGivern, P. J., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 813, 355 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hill-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack