People v. Iglesia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Iglesia

96 A.D.2d 515, 464 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19030

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 A.D.2d 515 (People v. Iglesia) 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. Iglesia, 96 A.D.2d 515, 464 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19030 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered May 12,1981, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No questions of facts have been raised or considered. The court’s refusal to instruct the jury, as requested, on the issue of the voluntariness of the defendant’s statements, as required by CPL 710.70 (subd 3), necessitates a new trial (see People u Graham, 55 NY2d [516]*516144; People v Gibson, 89 AD2d 859). The error may not be regarded as harmless, as the statute is mandatory in its direction and the court’s refusal to so charge deprived the jury of any instructions regarding the standards by which to evaluate the defendant’s claim that the statements in issue had been coerced. Thompson, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered May 12,1981, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No questions of facts have been raised or considered. The court’s refusal to instruct the jury, as requested, on the issue of the voluntariness of the defendant’s statements, as required by CPL 710.70 (subd 3), necessitates a new trial (see People u Graham, 55 NY2d [516]*516144; People v Gibson, 89 AD2d 859). The error may not be regarded as harmless, as the statute is mandatory in its direction and the court’s refusal to so charge deprived the jury of any instructions regarding the standards by which to evaluate the defendant’s claim that the statements in issue had been coerced. Thompson, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 515, 464 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-iglesia-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack