People v. Quaranta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Quaranta

74 A.D.2d 910, 426 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10711

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 910 (People v. Quaranta) 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. Quaranta, 74 A.D.2d 910, 426 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered December 18, 1978, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. In our opinion, the Trial Judge should have declared a mistrial following his granting of a severance to codefendant Gourdet on the ground that Gourdet could not receive a fair trial due to the introduction of certain evidence. By allowing the trial to continue against the appellant, defense counsel was forced to change his trial strategy (see People v Baum, 64 AD2d 655). The prejudice was compounded when Gourdet decided to plead guilty and appear as a witness for the prosecution. Defense counsel had little opportunity to prepare for such a surprising changeover in events. Under these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to a new trial. Rabin, J. P., Margett, Martuscello and Weinstein, 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 County Court, Nassau County, rendered December 18, 1978, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. In our opinion, the Trial Judge should have declared a mistrial following his granting of a severance to codefendant Gourdet on the ground that Gourdet could not receive a fair trial due to the introduction of certain evidence. By allowing the trial to continue against the appellant, defense counsel was forced to change his trial strategy (see People v Baum, 64 AD2d 655). The prejudice was compounded when Gourdet decided to plead guilty and appear as a witness for the prosecution. Defense counsel had little opportunity to prepare for such a surprising changeover in events. Under these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to a new trial. Rabin, J. P., Margett, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 910, 426 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-quaranta-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack