People v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hill

158 A.D.2d 339, 551 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1372

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 339 (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, 158 A.D.2d 339, 551 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant, together with two others, stole a watch from an unlicensed Senegalese street vendor. He contends that, during his trial, he was deprived of his due process rights by the court’s unbalanced marshaling of the evidence. If a Trial Judge marshals the evidence "it manifestly becomes important for the Judge to exercise scrupulous care that the review of the evidence and the accompanying comments are balanced and evenhanded, and that they do not inappropriately influence the jury in the discharge of its obligation to determine the factual issues”. (People v Brown, 129 AD2d 450, 452, citing People v Williamson, 40 NY2d 1073, 1074.) In the instant case, the court’s marshaling was appropriately balanced.

It first summarized the complainant’s testimony, then that of the codefendant, pointing out where they differed, followed by a summary of the testimony of the other witnesses. Throughout the court repeatedly reminded the jury that it was their recollection that controlled.

The court’s references to the race and background of the various parties in emphasizing the equal protection of the law to which both the complaining witness and the defendants were entitled, while inartistically phrased and essentially unnecessary, were not prejudicial to the defendant. Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Defendant, together with two others, stole a watch from an unlicensed Senegalese street vendor. He contends that, during his trial, he was deprived of his due process rights by the court’s unbalanced marshaling of the evidence. If a Trial Judge marshals the evidence "it manifestly becomes important for the Judge to exercise scrupulous care that the review of the evidence and the accompanying comments are balanced and evenhanded, and that they do not inappropriately influence the jury in the discharge of its obligation to determine the factual issues”. (People v Brown, 129 AD2d 450, 452, citing People v Williamson, 40 NY2d 1073, 1074.) In the instant case, the court’s marshaling was appropriately balanced.

It first summarized the complainant’s testimony, then that of the codefendant, pointing out where they differed, followed by a summary of the testimony of the other witnesses. Throughout the court repeatedly reminded the jury that it was their recollection that controlled.

The court’s references to the race and background of the various parties in emphasizing the equal protection of the law to which both the complaining witness and the defendants were entitled, while inartistically phrased and essentially unnecessary, were not prejudicial to the defendant. Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 339, 551 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hill-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack