People v. Outlaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Outlaw

40 A.D.2d 985, 338 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3207

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 985 (People v. Outlaw) 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. Outlaw, 40 A.D.2d 985, 338 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

in a coram nobis proceeding to vacate a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered May 20, 1970, after a non jury trial, which was affirmed January 25, 1971 {People v. Outlaw, 36 A D 2d 581), defendant appeals from an order of the same court, entered April 20, 1971, which denied the application without a hearing. Order reversed, on the law, and proceeding remitted to the County Court for a hearing and a determination de novo. The gravamen of this application is that defendant learned through an accomplice’s sworn statement that the prosecuting attorney knowingly used perjured testimony against him at the [986]*986trial.. On the strength of these allegations, which are supported by the accomplice’s sworn statement, a hearing is warranted (People v. Watford, 28 A D 2d 858). Shapiro, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

in a coram nobis proceeding to vacate a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered May 20, 1970, after a non jury trial, which was affirmed January 25, 1971 {People v. Outlaw, 36 A D 2d 581), defendant appeals from an order of the same court, entered April 20, 1971, which denied the application without a hearing. Order reversed, on the law, and proceeding remitted to the County Court for a hearing and a determination de novo. The gravamen of this application is that defendant learned through an accomplice’s sworn statement that the prosecuting attorney knowingly used perjured testimony against him at the [986]*986trial.. On the strength of these allegations, which are supported by the accomplice’s sworn statement, a hearing is warranted (People v. Watford, 28 A D 2d 858). Shapiro, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 985, 338 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-outlaw-nyappdiv-1972.