People v. Hool

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hool

46 A.D.2d 912, 363 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3245

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 46 A.D.2d 912 (People v. Hool) 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. Hool, 46 A.D.2d 912, 363 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, [913]*913Nassau County, rendered March 22, 1974, convicting him of criminally selling a dangerous drug in the third degree (three counts) (Penal Law, former § 220.30) and criminally possessing a dangerous drug in the fourth degree (three counts) (Penal Law, former § 220.05), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact have not been considered. It was error for the trial court to refuse the request of defendant for instructions to the jury on whether he was in fact acting on behalf of the buyers, the undercover police officers, and that, if he was, the jury must acquit him of all charges. The issues of agency was presented by the evidence and defendant was entitled to the requested charge (People V. Miller, 24 A D 2d Í023; People v. Ivory, 27 A D 2d 844). Shapiro, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, [913]*913Nassau County, rendered March 22, 1974, convicting him of criminally selling a dangerous drug in the third degree (three counts) (Penal Law, former § 220.30) and criminally possessing a dangerous drug in the fourth degree (three counts) (Penal Law, former § 220.05), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact have not been considered. It was error for the trial court to refuse the request of defendant for instructions to the jury on whether he was in fact acting on behalf of the buyers, the undercover police officers, and that, if he was, the jury must acquit him of all charges. The issues of agency was presented by the evidence and defendant was entitled to the requested charge (People V. Miller, 24 A D 2d Í023; People v. Ivory, 27 A D 2d 844). Shapiro, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 912, 363 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hool-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack