People v. Mixon

120 A.D.2d 861, 502 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56965
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 22, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 861 (People v. Mixon) 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. Mixon, 120 A.D.2d 861, 502 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56965 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— Mikoll, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Monroe, [862]*862J.), rendered April 13, 1984, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Defendant was found guilty of promoting prison contraband in the first degree as a result of his possession of a sharpened metal "shank” on November 23, 1983 while an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility. Before trial commenced, defendant objected to County Court’s ruling that defendant would be handcuffed and shackled throughout the trial. Defendant raises several issues on this appeal; however, we need direct our attention to but one which is dispositive of the matter.

While the record reveals that the defendant excepted to County Court’s ruling ordering that he be tried in restraints, the record contains no statement by the court giving any reasons for the order. In addition, the court failed to instruct the jury with regard to its consideration of the restraints. Defendant contends that this constituted a denial of his right to a fair trial. We concur (see, People v Hart, 112 AD2d 471). Contrary to the argument advanced by the People, defendant’s failure to request such a charge is not fatal. Further, we do not find persuasive the People’s argument that the error was not prejudicial to defendant. The use of restraints should be avoided whenever possible and, in any event, the reason for their use should be articulated on the record with appropriate instructions given to the jury.

Judgment reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Chemung County for a new trial. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Adams
8 A.D.3d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
State v. Rodriguez
146 Wash. 2d 260 (Washington Supreme Court, 2002)
State v. Allah Jamaal W.
543 S.E.2d 282 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2000)
People v. Farless
245 A.D.2d 878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Marquez
156 Misc. 2d 509 (New York Supreme Court, 1993)
People v. Young
185 A.D.2d 369 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Rouse
79 N.Y.2d 934 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
People v. Bryant
158 A.D.2d 808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Dawson
125 A.D.2d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Neu
124 A.D.2d 885 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 A.D.2d 861, 502 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mixon-nyappdiv-1986.