People v. Jerome C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jerome C.

32 A.D.2d 840, 303 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3552

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

DecidedJune 30, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 840 (People v. Jerome C.) 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. Jerome C., 32 A.D.2d 840, 303 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered July 1, 1968, which adjudged appellant a youthful offender, after ~a nonjury trial to which he had consented, and imposed sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and ease remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for a new trial before a jury. The findings of fact are affirmed. With respect to appellant’s prime claim of error, we hold that the statutory requirement of consent to a trial without a jury for eligibility for youthful offender treatment (Code Crim. Pro., § 913-g, subd. 3; § 913-h) is unconstitutional (People v. Michael A. C. [Anonymous], 32 A D 2d 554). With respect to appellant’s additional claim of error, we hold that a “ pre-indictment ” lineup procedure constitutes a critical stage of the criminal prosecution, at which the defendant is ordinarily entitled to the aid of counsel (United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 231-234; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 298; Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263, 272-274). However, where, as at bar, the testimony concerning lineup identification was surplusage, in light of the clear and convincing in-eourt identification of appellant, the error may be disregarded under section 542 of the Code of Criminal" Procedure (People v. Baskerville, 32 A D 2d 555). Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuseello and ¡Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered July 1, 1968, which adjudged appellant a youthful offender, after ~a nonjury trial to which he had consented, and imposed sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and ease remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for a new trial before a jury. The findings of fact are affirmed. With respect to appellant’s prime claim of error, we hold that the statutory requirement of consent to a trial without a jury for eligibility for youthful offender treatment (Code Crim. Pro., § 913-g, subd. 3; § 913-h) is unconstitutional (People v. Michael A. C. [Anonymous], 32 A D 2d 554). With respect to appellant’s additional claim of error, we hold that a “ pre-indictment ” lineup procedure constitutes a critical stage of the criminal prosecution, at which the defendant is ordinarily entitled to the aid of counsel (United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 231-234; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 298; Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263, 272-274). However, where, as at bar, the testimony concerning lineup identification was surplusage, in light of the clear and convincing in-eourt identification of appellant, the error may be disregarded under section 542 of the Code of Criminal" Procedure (People v. Baskerville, 32 A D 2d 555). Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuseello and ¡Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 840, 303 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jerome-c-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack