People v. Intersimone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Intersimone

266 A.D. 280, 42 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3542

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

DecidedJune 11, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 266 A.D. 280 (People v. Intersimone) 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. Intersimone, 266 A.D. 280, 42 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The trial court, reviewing the prosecution’s evidence on the essential issue of identification, so marshalled the facts as to emphasize unduly the People’s case; he barely made reference to evidence introduced by defendant and his witnesses, and suggested there could be no motive for a false identification. To help the jury intelligently to reach a conclusion on the evidence the court should review the testimony but this should be done fairly and impartially and not in a manner to suggest what the jury’s verdict should be.

In charging the jury on the alibi defense the court at the outset suggested that it was fabricated and later improperly refused to charge as requested by defendant’s counsel that the defense of alibi may of itself create a reasonable doubt notwithstanding the positive testimony of the police officer to the identification. Proper exceptions were taken to the errors noted.

We think we should not say such errors did not affect substantial rights of the defendant (People v. Fanning, 131 N. Y. 659, 663; People v. Robins, 242 App. Div. 516, 521; People v. Rabinowitz, 290 N. Y. 386). There were other errors upon which we do not comment as they are unlikely to occur in a new trial.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Townley, Untebmyeb, Dobe and Callahan, JJ., concur; Mastín, P. J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

The trial court, reviewing the prosecution’s evidence on the essential issue of identification, so marshalled the facts as to emphasize unduly the People’s case; he barely made reference to evidence introduced by defendant and his witnesses, and suggested there could be no motive for a false identification. To help the jury intelligently to reach a conclusion on the evidence the court should review the testimony but this should be done fairly and impartially and not in a manner to suggest what the jury’s verdict should be.

In charging the jury on the alibi defense the court at the outset suggested that it was fabricated and later improperly refused to charge as requested by defendant’s counsel that the defense of alibi may of itself create a reasonable doubt notwithstanding the positive testimony of the police officer to the identification. Proper exceptions were taken to the errors noted.

We think we should not say such errors did not affect substantial rights of the defendant (People v. Fanning, 131 N. Y. 659, 663; People v. Robins, 242 App. Div. 516, 521; People v. Rabinowitz, 290 N. Y. 386). There were other errors upon which we do not comment as they are unlikely to occur in a new trial.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Townley, Untebmyeb, Dobe and Callahan, JJ., concur; Mastín, P. J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D. 280, 42 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-intersimone-nyappdiv-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack