People v. Paladino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Paladino

18 A.D.2d 812, 236 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5023

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 812 (People v. Paladino) 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. Paladino, 18 A.D.2d 812, 236 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Queens County, rendered July 19, 1961 after a jury trial, convicting him of third degree burglary and first decree grand larceny, and sentencing him as a second offender to serve a term of 5 to 10 years on each count, such terms to run concurrently. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered. The sole issue for the juryfs determination was whether, at the time he committed the crimes, the defendant was insane. The court’s questioning of the medical expert called by the defendant, and the court’s comment in its charge to the jury that “ apparently ” the defendant’s expert disagreed with the presumption of sanity, may have conveyed to the jury, albeit inadvertently, an impression that the court disagreed with the said expert’s opinion and believed that the defendant was sane at the time he (the defendant) committed the crimes. In view of the closeness of this issue,, it is our opinion that in the interests of justice a new trial should be accorded to defendant. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Hill, J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Queens County, rendered July 19, 1961 after a jury trial, convicting him of third degree burglary and first decree grand larceny, and sentencing him as a second offender to serve a term of 5 to 10 years on each count, such terms to run concurrently. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered. The sole issue for the juryfs determination was whether, at the time he committed the crimes, the defendant was insane. The court’s questioning of the medical expert called by the defendant, and the court’s comment in its charge to the jury that “ apparently ” the defendant’s expert disagreed with the presumption of sanity, may have conveyed to the jury, albeit inadvertently, an impression that the court disagreed with the said expert’s opinion and believed that the defendant was sane at the time he (the defendant) committed the crimes. In view of the closeness of this issue,, it is our opinion that in the interests of justice a new trial should be accorded to defendant. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Hill, J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 812, 236 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-paladino-nyappdiv-1963.