People v. Mobley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mobley

29 A.D.2d 775, 287 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4614

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 775 (People v. Mobley) 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. Mobley, 29 A.D.2d 775, 287 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered August 12, 1966, reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, the record establishes that the pretrial identification procedure used in this ease was unnecessarily and prejudicially suggestive (United States v. Wade, 388 IT. S. 218) and the new trial should be untainted by any testimony regarding it (Palmer v. Peyton, 359 F. 2d 199, 202-203). The testimony of Detective Callaghan as to prior identifications by witnesses Lay and Harraen was also improper (People v. Gaserta, 19 NY 2d 18; People v. Trowbridge, 305 N. Y. 471). There is insufficient testimony in this record to enable us to determine whether the statements made by appellant to Detective Callaghan in the police station were elicited by interrogation after his request for counsel had been refused (People V. Sanchez, 15 N Y 2d 387, 389). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder 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, Queens County, rendered August 12, 1966, reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, the record establishes that the pretrial identification procedure used in this ease was unnecessarily and prejudicially suggestive (United States v. Wade, 388 IT. S. 218) and the new trial should be untainted by any testimony regarding it (Palmer v. Peyton, 359 F. 2d 199, 202-203). The testimony of Detective Callaghan as to prior identifications by witnesses Lay and Harraen was also improper (People v. Gaserta, 19 NY 2d 18; People v. Trowbridge, 305 N. Y. 471). There is insufficient testimony in this record to enable us to determine whether the statements made by appellant to Detective Callaghan in the police station were elicited by interrogation after his request for counsel had been refused (People V. Sanchez, 15 N Y 2d 387, 389). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 775, 287 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mobley-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack