People v. Loysen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Loysen

72 A.D.2d 970, 422 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14800

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 970 (People v. Loysen) 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. Loysen, 72 A.D.2d 970, 422 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed and new trial granted. Memorandum: Commendably the District Attorney concedes that there must be a reversal of the judgment and a new trial. Two prosecution [971]*971witnesses, alleged accomplices of defendant, had been granted immunity from prosecution for the crime which was the subject of this indictment and that fact was discussed at trial. The trial assistant handling the prosecution was not aware at the time of trial, however, that for their testimony in this case they also were to receive youthful offender treatment as the result of prior pleas on unrelated charges. Being unaware of this plea bargain and the inducement for their testimony against defendant, he did not disclose it and this resulted in defendant being denied a fair trial (Napue v Illinois, 360 US 264, 270). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court— burglary, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed and new trial granted. Memorandum: Commendably the District Attorney concedes that there must be a reversal of the judgment and a new trial. Two prosecution [971]*971witnesses, alleged accomplices of defendant, had been granted immunity from prosecution for the crime which was the subject of this indictment and that fact was discussed at trial. The trial assistant handling the prosecution was not aware at the time of trial, however, that for their testimony in this case they also were to receive youthful offender treatment as the result of prior pleas on unrelated charges. Being unaware of this plea bargain and the inducement for their testimony against defendant, he did not disclose it and this resulted in defendant being denied a fair trial (Napue v Illinois, 360 US 264, 270). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court— burglary, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 970, 422 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-loysen-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack