People v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Phillips

27 A.D.2d 981, 278 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4487

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

DecidedApril 6, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 981 (People v. Phillips) 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. Phillips, 27 A.D.2d 981, 278 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of robbery, first degree and grand larceny, first degree. Upon the trial a police officer was permitted over objection to state the description of the two assailants given him by complainant shortly after the alleged crime. The testimony should not have been received (People v. Deitsch, 237 N. Y. 300, 304; People v. Oliver, 4 A D 2d 28, 31, affd. 3 N Y 2d 684). Moreover, the trial court in its charge stated that one or more police officers had testified that complainant identified the two defendants when they were apprehended a short time after the alleged robbery. There was no such testimony and if there had been its receipt would have been error (People v. Trowbridge, 305 N. Y. 471; People v. Oliver, supra, p. 31). We conclude, however, that these errors do not mandate reversal (cf. Code Crim. Pro., § 542). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court convicting defendant of robbery, first degree and grand larceny, first degree.) Present— Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of robbery, first degree and grand larceny, first degree. Upon the trial a police officer was permitted over objection to state the description of the two assailants given him by complainant shortly after the alleged crime. The testimony should not have been received (People v. Deitsch, 237 N. Y. 300, 304; People v. Oliver, 4 A D 2d 28, 31, affd. 3 N Y 2d 684). Moreover, the trial court in its charge stated that one or more police officers had testified that complainant identified the two defendants when they were apprehended a short time after the alleged robbery. There was no such testimony and if there had been its receipt would have been error (People v. Trowbridge, 305 N. Y. 471; People v. Oliver, supra, p. 31). We conclude, however, that these errors do not mandate reversal (cf. Code Crim. Pro., § 542). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court convicting defendant of robbery, first degree and grand larceny, first degree.) Present— Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 981, 278 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-phillips-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack