People v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. King

42 A.D.2d 587, 344 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4213

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 11, 1973·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 24, 1971, convicting him of murder, manslaughter in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted grand larceny in the third degree, assault in the first degree (two counts) and possession of a weapon as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, it was not error for the trial court to conduct the voir dire examination under the then existing rule (22 NYCRR 20.13) of the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference (see People v. Bush, 40 A D 2d 591; People v. Caputo, 38 A D 2d 792; People v. Scianameo, 39 A D 2d 721). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder and Latham, JJ., concur; Martuscello and Benjamin, JJ., concur in the result, with the following memorandum: If the introduction of the evidence with respect to the holster was error, we deem the error excusable in view of the overwhelming proof of guilt.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 24, 1971, convicting him of murder, manslaughter in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted grand larceny in the third degree, assault in the first degree (two counts) and possession of a weapon as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, it was not error for the trial court to conduct the voir dire examination under the then existing rule (22 NYCRR 20.13) of the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference (see People v. Bush, 40 A D 2d 591; People v. Caputo, 38 A D 2d 792; People v. Scianameo, 39 A D 2d 721). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder and Latham, JJ., concur; Martuscello and Benjamin, JJ., concur in the result, with the following memorandum: If the introduction of the evidence with respect to the holster was error, we deem the error excusable in view of the overwhelming proof of guilt.

People v. King, 42 A.D.2d 587, 344 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

42 A.D.2d 587 (People v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related