People v. Michael A. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Michael A. C.

32 A.D.2d 554, 300 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4176

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

DecidedApril 21, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 554 (People v. Michael A. C.) 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. Michael A. C., 32 A.D.2d 554, 300 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered August 20, 1968, adjudging him a youthful offender after a nonjury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and ease remitted to the court below for a new trial before a jury. The findings of fact below are affirmed. In our opinion, subdivision 3 of section 913-g and section 913-h of the Code of Criminal Procedure, insofar as they require a defendant to consent to a summary trial without a jury to render him eligible for youthful offender treatment, are unconstitutional (cf. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149; United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570; Matter of Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 12; Nieves v. United States, 280 F. Supp. 994, 1006; Matter of Saunders v. Lupiano, 30 A D 2d 803; People v. Towler, 30 A D 2d 876). Defendant’s other contentions have been examined and are without merit. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, 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 County Court, Nassau County, rendered August 20, 1968, adjudging him a youthful offender after a nonjury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and ease remitted to the court below for a new trial before a jury. The findings of fact below are affirmed. In our opinion, subdivision 3 of section 913-g and section 913-h of the Code of Criminal Procedure, insofar as they require a defendant to consent to a summary trial without a jury to render him eligible for youthful offender treatment, are unconstitutional (cf. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149; United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570; Matter of Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 12; Nieves v. United States, 280 F. Supp. 994, 1006; Matter of Saunders v. Lupiano, 30 A D 2d 803; People v. Towler, 30 A D 2d 876). Defendant’s other contentions have been examined and are without merit. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 554, 300 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-michael-a-c-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack