People v. Mapp

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Mapp

393 N.E.2d 1020, 47 N.Y.2d 939, 419 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2193

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 28, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 393 N.E.2d 1020 (People v. Mapp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Mapp, 393 N.E.2d 1020, 47 N.Y.2d 939, 419 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2193 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We conclude that the evidence in this case was not such as to entitle defendant to a charge with respect to either the [940]*940agency defense or the affirmative defense of entrapment. Accordingly it was not error for the trial court to deny defense counsel’s requests for such charges.

Nor is there substance to defendant’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in consequence of what he characterizes as a failure "to tender a meaningful summation in his behalf’. Faced with overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, including his own trial testimony admitting participation in the transaction on which the charge was based, counsel’s strategy had been predicated on the defenses of agency and entrapment. When the trial court ruled out these defenses as a matter of law, defense counsel was placed in a most difficult position — a "dilemma”, as defendant concedes. That counsel then chose in a forthright though brief statement to submit his client to the mercy and fair-mindedness of the jury does not warrant a finding that defendant was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Meyer concur; Judge Fuchsberg taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We conclude that the evidence in this case was not such as to entitle defendant to a charge with respect to either the [940]*940agency defense or the affirmative defense of entrapment. Accordingly it was not error for the trial court to deny defense counsel’s requests for such charges.

Nor is there substance to defendant’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in consequence of what he characterizes as a failure "to tender a meaningful summation in his behalf’. Faced with overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, including his own trial testimony admitting participation in the transaction on which the charge was based, counsel’s strategy had been predicated on the defenses of agency and entrapment. When the trial court ruled out these defenses as a matter of law, defense counsel was placed in a most difficult position — a "dilemma”, as defendant concedes. That counsel then chose in a forthright though brief statement to submit his client to the mercy and fair-mindedness of the jury does not warrant a finding that defendant was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Meyer concur; Judge Fuchsberg taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 N.E.2d 1020, 47 N.Y.2d 939, 419 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mapp-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack