People v. McNair

59 A.D.2d 787, 398 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13851
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 31, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 787 (People v. McNair) 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. McNair, 59 A.D.2d 787, 398 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered February 10, 1975, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (five counts), attempted assault in the first degree and possession of weapons, etc., as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No contentions are raised with respect to the facts. At the trial only one of the four testifying robbery victims identified defendant as one of the robbers. Other identification of defendant as one of the robbers was made by Henry Bryant. Bryant, however, by his own admission, was one of the three robbers. Mark Cody—although disclaiming any participation in or knowledge of the robbery—admitted driving the car in which Henry Bryant and, allegedly, the defendant, fled. Defendant testified and totally denied participation or involvement in the robbery. We find that the following errors were committed and that, in the light of the nature and quality of the identification evidence, they were highly prejudicial: (1) Prosecution witness Hezekiah [788]*788Lewis, one of the robbers, exculpated defendant. The prosecution then clearly impeached him by alleged prior contradictory statements which, though oral, were unsworn. This constituted a direct violation of GPL 60.35 and constituted unsworn testimony by the prosecutor. (2) The cross-examination of defendant concerning robberies other than those for which he was being tried was a direct violation of the letter and spirit of the parties’ Sandoval stipulation and the rationale of People v Sandoval (34 NY2d 371) itself. Hopkins, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Brazzeal
172 A.D.2d 757 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Putnam
130 A.D.2d 52 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Vega
108 A.D.2d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Ortero
75 A.D.2d 168 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 A.D.2d 787, 398 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcnair-nyappdiv-1977.