People v. Mendez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mendez

30 A.D.2d 561, 291 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3952

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

DecidedMay 20, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 561 (People v. Mendez) 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. Mendez, 30 A.D.2d 561, 291 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 25, 1966 upon a jury verdict, reversed, on the law and in the interests of justice, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below are affirmed. The District Attorney.concedes, and we agree, that the prosecutor’s comments during summation, inter alia, tended to introduce divisive issues and inaccurate references to the testimony adduced, which may well be considered to have been cumulatively prejudicial and to have deprived defendant of a fair evaluation of the facts by the jury. Under the circumstances, we conclude that defendant should, in the interests of justice, be accorded a new trial. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 25, 1966 upon a jury verdict, reversed, on the law and in the interests of justice, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below are affirmed. The District Attorney.concedes, and we agree, that the prosecutor’s comments during summation, inter alia, tended to introduce divisive issues and inaccurate references to the testimony adduced, which may well be considered to have been cumulatively prejudicial and to have deprived defendant of a fair evaluation of the facts by the jury. Under the circumstances, we conclude that defendant should, in the interests of justice, be accorded a new trial. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 561, 291 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mendez-nyappdiv-1968.