People v. Polhill

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Polhill

257 N.E.2d 294, 26 N.Y.2d 749, 309 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1594

DecidedJanuary 22, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 257 N.E.2d 294 (People v. Polhill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Polhill, 257 N.E.2d 294, 26 N.Y.2d 749, 309 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1594 (N.Y. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein, there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether the rights of defendant under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were denied. Defendant argued that he had been deprived of his fundamental constitutional rights to a fair trial and to due process of law because the mental infirmity, paranoid schizophrenia, of the prosecution’s principal witness was or should have been known to the prosecution and was not called to the attention of the jury. The Court of Appeals considered this contention and held that there was no violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. [See 25 N Y 2d 1002.]

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

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein, there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether the rights of defendant under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were denied. Defendant argued that he had been deprived of his fundamental constitutional rights to a fair trial and to due process of law because the mental infirmity, paranoid schizophrenia, of the prosecution’s principal witness was or should have been known to the prosecution and was not called to the attention of the jury. The Court of Appeals considered this contention and held that there was no violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. [See 25 N Y 2d 1002.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 N.E.2d 294, 26 N.Y.2d 749, 309 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-polhill-ny-1970.