People v. Latimer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Latimer

29 A.D.2d 541, 285 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2879

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 541 (People v. Latimer) 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. Latimer, 29 A.D.2d 541, 285 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 30, [542]*5421965, reversed, on the law, and proceeding remanded to the Criminal Term for a further hearing, before a Justice other than the one who made the order under review, on the issue of defendant’s sanity at the time he pleaded guilty. No questions of fact as to that issue were considered on this appeal. In our opinion, defendant’s request for the appointment of a psychiatrist to give expert testimony at the hearing should have been granted (see, Code Grim. Pro., former § 308 [as amd. by L. 1965, eh. 321, § 5, eft’. June 1, 1965; repealed by L. 1965, eh. 878, § 5, eft. Dec. 1, 1965]). Under all the special circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the further hearing should be held before a Justice who has not previously passed upon this matter. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 30, [542]*5421965, reversed, on the law, and proceeding remanded to the Criminal Term for a further hearing, before a Justice other than the one who made the order under review, on the issue of defendant’s sanity at the time he pleaded guilty. No questions of fact as to that issue were considered on this appeal. In our opinion, defendant’s request for the appointment of a psychiatrist to give expert testimony at the hearing should have been granted (see, Code Grim. Pro., former § 308 [as amd. by L. 1965, eh. 321, § 5, eft’. June 1, 1965; repealed by L. 1965, eh. 878, § 5, eft. Dec. 1, 1965]). Under all the special circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the further hearing should be held before a Justice who has not previously passed upon this matter. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 541, 285 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-latimer-nyappdiv-1967.