People v. Outler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Outler

31 A.D.2d 639, 296 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2765

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 639 (People v. Outler) 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. Outler, 31 A.D.2d 639, 296 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 9, 1967, convicting defendant of violation of the Public Health Law with respect to narcotic drugs as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below are affirmed. In our opinion the testimony adduced in this narcotics prosecution from the People’s chief witness, a narcotics detective, that defendant was previously known to him from “a similar occasion” was severely prejudicial and buttressed a prior implication that the detective previously knew defendant due to defendant’s former involvement with illegal trafficking of narcotics. Moreover, the court also erred in permitting hearsay testimony of the substance of a conversation between this detective and a fugitive accomplice wherein the accomplice had implicated defendant in the crime. The error was compounded when there was no instruction by the trial court to the jury that the admissions of the accomplice did not bind defendant (see People v. Robinson, 28 A D 2d 916). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 9, 1967, convicting defendant of violation of the Public Health Law with respect to narcotic drugs as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below are affirmed. In our opinion the testimony adduced in this narcotics prosecution from the People’s chief witness, a narcotics detective, that defendant was previously known to him from “a similar occasion” was severely prejudicial and buttressed a prior implication that the detective previously knew defendant due to defendant’s former involvement with illegal trafficking of narcotics. Moreover, the court also erred in permitting hearsay testimony of the substance of a conversation between this detective and a fugitive accomplice wherein the accomplice had implicated defendant in the crime. The error was compounded when there was no instruction by the trial court to the jury that the admissions of the accomplice did not bind defendant (see People v. Robinson, 28 A D 2d 916). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 639, 296 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-outler-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack