People v. Mejias

72 A.D.2d 570, 420 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13654
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 15, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 72 A.D.2d 570 (People v. Mejias) 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. Mejias, 72 A.D.2d 570, 420 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 14, 1974, convicting her of criminal sale of a dangerous drug in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree (two counts), criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the sixth degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled [571]*571substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. Defendant was denied a fair trial by various acts of prosecutorial misconduct. Among the errors committed were the use of an unnecessarily and unwarranted inflammatory summation (see People v Dennis, 62 AD2d 1022; People v Reyes, 64 AD2d 657), the prosecutor making himself an unsworn witness, the introduction of defendant’s prior history in an effort to establish a propensity to commit the crimes charged (see People v Wright, 41 NY2d 172), and the arguments urged that defendant’s association with undesirables was evidence of guilt (see People v Termini, 65 AD2d 825) and that the Grand Jury indictment was evidence of guilt (see People v Donaldson, 49 AD2d 1004). Although objections were often sustained and curative instructions were ofttimes given, the totality of the circumstances indicates that defendant was deprived of her basic right to a fair trial. Accordingly, a new trial is necessary. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Jamal
307 A.D.2d 267 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Simmons
110 A.D.2d 666 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Brown
91 A.D.2d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. McCann
90 A.D.2d 554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Lindo
85 A.D.2d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 A.D.2d 570, 420 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mejias-nyappdiv-1979.