People v. Mohney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mohney

24 A.D.2d 1071, 265 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2896

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 1071 (People v. Mohney) 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. Mohney, 24 A.D.2d 1071, 265 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment insofar as it resentenees defendant unanimously reversed, resentence vacated, and matter remitted to Chautauqua County Court for further proceedings on resentence in accordance with the Memorandum. Memorandum: After the Clerk asked the question mandated by section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant’s attorney said: “You will have to answer no.”, whereupon appellant gave that answer. In the light of the attorney’s statement this was an improper restraint upon a free response to the allocution and the court should have informed appellant that there was no limitation on the manner in which he could answer. (Appeal from judgment of resentence of Chautauqua County Court convicting defendant of sodomy.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Marsh, JJ.

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

Judgment insofar as it resentenees defendant unanimously reversed, resentence vacated, and matter remitted to Chautauqua County Court for further proceedings on resentence in accordance with the Memorandum. Memorandum: After the Clerk asked the question mandated by section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant’s attorney said: “You will have to answer no.”, whereupon appellant gave that answer. In the light of the attorney’s statement this was an improper restraint upon a free response to the allocution and the court should have informed appellant that there was no limitation on the manner in which he could answer. (Appeal from judgment of resentence of Chautauqua County Court convicting defendant of sodomy.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 1071, 265 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mohney-nyappdiv-1965.