People v. Palma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Palma

33 A.D.2d 687, 306 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2917

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 687 (People v. Palma) 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. Palma, 33 A.D.2d 687, 306 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 3, 1967 on resentence. Upon th.e appeal, this court reviewed the decision of the Criminal Term denying defendant’s application in the nature of coram nobis, rendered before the judgment from which the appeal was taken. Judgment affirmed. We find no factual basis for the claim that there was perjured testimony at the trial because the jury was not told of a sentence promise to one witness or the circumstances of the police custody of a material witness. The minutes of the trial reveal that [688]*688the Trial Justice specifically informed the jury of the promise to the witness Diaz and further informed the jury of the circumstances of the police custody of the material witness Swanson. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, 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 November 3, 1967 on resentence. Upon th.e appeal, this court reviewed the decision of the Criminal Term denying defendant’s application in the nature of coram nobis, rendered before the judgment from which the appeal was taken. Judgment affirmed. We find no factual basis for the claim that there was perjured testimony at the trial because the jury was not told of a sentence promise to one witness or the circumstances of the police custody of a material witness. The minutes of the trial reveal that [688]*688the Trial Justice specifically informed the jury of the promise to the witness Diaz and further informed the jury of the circumstances of the police custody of the material witness Swanson. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 687, 306 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-palma-nyappdiv-1969.