People v. McMenemon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McMenemon

39 A.D.2d 750, 332 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4621

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

DecidedMay 15, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 750 (People v. McMenemon) 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. McMenemon, 39 A.D.2d 750, 332 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 17, 1970, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below are affirmed. While the trial court properly granted appellant’s motion for a copy of the minutes of the pretrial identification hearing (People v. Zabrocky, 26 N Y 2d 530), we think it was an abuse of discretion to refuse a short adjournment of the trial or to take no action to compel production of the minutes when they were not forthcoming from the stenographers. We also think that there was evidence in this record from which the jury could reasonably have found as a fact that both Vasquez and Hernandez were accomplices. It was, therefore, error to refuse to submit that issue to them (cf. People v. White, 26 N Y 2d 276). Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ,, concur.

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 September 17, 1970, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below are affirmed. While the trial court properly granted appellant’s motion for a copy of the minutes of the pretrial identification hearing (People v. Zabrocky, 26 N Y 2d 530), we think it was an abuse of discretion to refuse a short adjournment of the trial or to take no action to compel production of the minutes when they were not forthcoming from the stenographers. We also think that there was evidence in this record from which the jury could reasonably have found as a fact that both Vasquez and Hernandez were accomplices. It was, therefore, error to refuse to submit that issue to them (cf. People v. White, 26 N Y 2d 276). Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ,, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 750, 332 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcmenemon-nyappdiv-1972.