People v. Paris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Paris

23 A.D.2d 840, 259 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4117

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

DecidedMay 20, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 840 (People v. Paris) 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. Paris, 23 A.D.2d 840, 259 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4117 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Concur — McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.; Breitel, J. P., and Valente, J., dissent and vote to reverse and grant new trial only on the ground that the curtailment of the cross-examination of the witness Weitz required striking of his testimony and an appropriate instruction to the jury. There are other errors in the charge but, in the light of the strong case for the People, those errors would not warrant reversal. Thus the court should have charged the jury on the significance of the claim of privilege by the witness Weitz, if that testimony could have been permitted to stand, and it was injudicious to refer to defendant not claiming to have received a bill of sale or a cheek in payment.

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

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Concur — McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.; Breitel, J. P., and Valente, J., dissent and vote to reverse and grant new trial only on the ground that the curtailment of the cross-examination of the witness Weitz required striking of his testimony and an appropriate instruction to the jury. There are other errors in the charge but, in the light of the strong case for the People, those errors would not warrant reversal. Thus the court should have charged the jury on the significance of the claim of privilege by the witness Weitz, if that testimony could have been permitted to stand, and it was injudicious to refer to defendant not claiming to have received a bill of sale or a cheek in payment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 840, 259 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-paris-nyappdiv-1965.