People v. Murph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Murph

38 A.D.2d 834, 329 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5446

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 834 (People v. Murph) 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. Murph, 38 A.D.2d 834, 329 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 10, 1970, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict have not been considered. In our opinion, the trial court committed error in limiting the scope of the cross-examination of the prosecution’s principal witness. That witness, who has a history of violent behavior, had the opportunity herself to commit the homicide of which defendant was found guilty. Under these unusual circumstances, it was highly prejudicial to refuse to permit cross-examination of the witness as to whether she had a motive for killing the deceased (Green v. State, 258 Ala. 471). Such inquiry was relevant to the vital issues in the case (cf. People v. Ramistella, 306 N. Y. 379). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Brennan, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 10, 1970, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict have not been considered. In our opinion, the trial court committed error in limiting the scope of the cross-examination of the prosecution’s principal witness. That witness, who has a history of violent behavior, had the opportunity herself to commit the homicide of which defendant was found guilty. Under these unusual circumstances, it was highly prejudicial to refuse to permit cross-examination of the witness as to whether she had a motive for killing the deceased (Green v. State, 258 Ala. 471). Such inquiry was relevant to the vital issues in the case (cf. People v. Ramistella, 306 N. Y. 379). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 834, 329 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murph-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack