People v. Jacobs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jacobs

45 A.D.2d 675, 356 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4803

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

DecidedJune 4, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 675 (People v. Jacobs) 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. Jacobs, 45 A.D.2d 675, 356 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered January 5, 1973, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the interest of justice, and a new trial directed before a different Judge_ Defendant-appellant did not receive a fair trial. The cross-examination of defendant as to prior conflicts with the law went far beyond permissible bounds in seeking details of prior convictions. Two instances will suffice. Defendant, accused of robbery while armed with a knife, was pursued as to how many times and in what parts of the body he had stabbed his victim in a prior homicide case. The vivid details of an assault in which the victim had suffered a gouged eye were also elicited. These examples alone justify a new trial. (See People v. Sorge, 301 N. Y. 198.) In addition, the Trial Justice injected himself into the trial more than necessary to clarify details of evidence during cross-examination of defendant and his alibi witnesses. (See People v. Shenk, 181 App. Div. 753.) A new trial is required. (People v. Mendes, 3 N Y 2d 120; People v. Sostre, 37 A D 2d 574; People v. Harris, 44 A D 2d 809; People v. Smith, 44 A D 2d 789.) Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Tilzer and Lane, JJ.

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

Judgment of conviction, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered January 5, 1973, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the interest of justice, and a new trial directed before a different Judge_ Defendant-appellant did not receive a fair trial. The cross-examination of defendant as to prior conflicts with the law went far beyond permissible bounds in seeking details of prior convictions. Two instances will suffice. Defendant, accused of robbery while armed with a knife, was pursued as to how many times and in what parts of the body he had stabbed his victim in a prior homicide case. The vivid details of an assault in which the victim had suffered a gouged eye were also elicited. These examples alone justify a new trial. (See People v. Sorge, 301 N. Y. 198.) In addition, the Trial Justice injected himself into the trial more than necessary to clarify details of evidence during cross-examination of defendant and his alibi witnesses. (See People v. Shenk, 181 App. Div. 753.) A new trial is required. (People v. Mendes, 3 N Y 2d 120; People v. Sostre, 37 A D 2d 574; People v. Harris, 44 A D 2d 809; People v. Smith, 44 A D 2d 789.) Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Tilzer and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 675, 356 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jacobs-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack