People v. Lord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lord

20 A.D.2d 579, 246 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2567

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 579 (People v. Lord) 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. Lord, 20 A.D.2d 579, 246 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered December 12, 1961, after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The statement in the prosecutor’s opening address that the People would prove prior identification was erroneous at that time, but the cross-examination of complainant showed that identification was in issue, and the People did introduce evidence- of prior identification without objection. Under these circumstances, in view of the clear guilt of defendant, the error in the opening statement should be overlooked (Code Crim. Pro., § 542). Beldock, P. J., Christ and Rabin, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld and Hill, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to order a new trial, with the following memorandum: In his opening address to the jury the prosecutor stated he would produce evidence of a prior identification of defendant by the complaining witness. In our opinion this was error which requires a new trial in the interests of justice (see People v. Cioffi, 1 N Y 2d 70; People v. Hagedorny, 272 App. Div. 830).

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 County Court, Kings County, rendered December 12, 1961, after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The statement in the prosecutor’s opening address that the People would prove prior identification was erroneous at that time, but the cross-examination of complainant showed that identification was in issue, and the People did introduce evidence- of prior identification without objection. Under these circumstances, in view of the clear guilt of defendant, the error in the opening statement should be overlooked (Code Crim. Pro., § 542). Beldock, P. J., Christ and Rabin, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld and Hill, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to order a new trial, with the following memorandum: In his opening address to the jury the prosecutor stated he would produce evidence of a prior identification of defendant by the complaining witness. In our opinion this was error which requires a new trial in the interests of justice (see People v. Cioffi, 1 N Y 2d 70; People v. Hagedorny, 272 App. Div. 830).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 579, 246 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lord-nyappdiv-1963.