People v. Kenny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kenny

20 A.D.2d 578, 246 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2566

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 578 (People v. Kenny) 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. Kenny, 20 A.D.2d 578, 246 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former [579]*579County Court, Kings County, rendered June 22, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. The trial court admitted in evidence a sheet of paper purporting to be a confession. Such claimed confession was in narrative form, written by a detective after interrogating defendant, and allegedly contained defendant’s answers to the questions. However, it was not signed or acknowledged by the defendant; nor was it read to him. Under the circumstances, it was error to receive the paper in evidence (State v. Cleveland, 6 N. J. 316; State v. Folkes, 174 Ore. 568, cert. den. 323 U. S. 779; 23 C. J. S., Criminal Law, § 833; 23 A. L. R. 2d 928). We are also of the opinion that the court in the cross-examination of defendant’s witness cast doubt on the witness’ credibility. This constituted error (People v. Viscio, 241 App. Div. 499, 501). We have considered defendant’s contention incident to his claim of illegal seizure, and find such contention to be untenable (cf. People v. Lombardi, 18 A D 2d 177, afird. 13 N Y 2d 1014). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, 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 former [579]*579County Court, Kings County, rendered June 22, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. The trial court admitted in evidence a sheet of paper purporting to be a confession. Such claimed confession was in narrative form, written by a detective after interrogating defendant, and allegedly contained defendant’s answers to the questions. However, it was not signed or acknowledged by the defendant; nor was it read to him. Under the circumstances, it was error to receive the paper in evidence (State v. Cleveland, 6 N. J. 316; State v. Folkes, 174 Ore. 568, cert. den. 323 U. S. 779; 23 C. J. S., Criminal Law, § 833; 23 A. L. R. 2d 928). We are also of the opinion that the court in the cross-examination of defendant’s witness cast doubt on the witness’ credibility. This constituted error (People v. Viscio, 241 App. Div. 499, 501). We have considered defendant’s contention incident to his claim of illegal seizure, and find such contention to be untenable (cf. People v. Lombardi, 18 A D 2d 177, afird. 13 N Y 2d 1014). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 578, 246 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kenny-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack