People v. Jusino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jusino

10 A.D.2d 618, 196 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11725

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 618 (People v. Jusino) 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. Jusino, 10 A.D.2d 618, 196 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed, on the law, the verdict vacated and a new trial ordered, in the exercise of discretion. On cross-examination of defendant the prosecutor improperly questioned him as to a prior arrest in 1953 and elicited from him an affirmative answer. To this, defendant’s counsel made a motion for a mistrial, which was denied. The question and answer were ordered stricken, but this was not sufficient to remedy the prejudice to defendant. Moreover, the prosecutor persisted in asking questions about the event which involved, and was described as, a “ so-called rumble ” in a park. Thus, defendant was deprived of a fair trial. (See Richardson, Evidence [8th ed.], § 518, and cases cited.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed, on the law, the verdict vacated and a new trial ordered, in the exercise of discretion. On cross-examination of defendant the prosecutor improperly questioned him as to a prior arrest in 1953 and elicited from him an affirmative answer. To this, defendant’s counsel made a motion for a mistrial, which was denied. The question and answer were ordered stricken, but this was not sufficient to remedy the prejudice to defendant. Moreover, the prosecutor persisted in asking questions about the event which involved, and was described as, a “ so-called rumble ” in a park. Thus, defendant was deprived of a fair trial. (See Richardson, Evidence [8th ed.], § 518, and cases cited.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 618, 196 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jusino-nyappdiv-1960.