People v. Rainey

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Rainey

263 N.E.2d 395, 27 N.Y.2d 748, 314 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1105

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 24, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 263 N.E.2d 395 (People v. Rainey) 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. Rainey, 263 N.E.2d 395, 27 N.Y.2d 748, 314 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1105 (N.Y. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion granted and appeal dismissed. Although Appellate Division order recites that its reversal was on the law and that findings of fact were affirmed, the order must be read in conjunc[749]*749tion with the opinion of that court (Code Crim. Pro., § 543-a; People v. De Courcy, 8 N Y 2d 192, 196; Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, pp. 536, 763-764). Since no exception to the trial court’s charge on self-defense was taken by defense counsel at the trial, no question of law on propriety of charge was presented to Appellate Division (Code Crim. Pro., § 420-a; People v. Rossi, 11 N Y 2d 379; People v. Cohen, 5 N Y 2d 282, 289). The Appellate Division did, however, have power to reverse and order a new trial in the interest of justice, notwithstanding the absence of an exception (Code Crim. Pro., § 527) and the court’s citation to section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reveals that the order below was the result of exercise of such discretion. . Consequently, since the Court of Appeals is unable to say that reversal was on the law alone, it lacks jurisdiction to review the order from which the People appeal (see People v. Rossi, supra; People v. Cohen, supra; People v. Redmond, 225 N. Y. 206; People v. Caverio, 1 N Y 2d 657).

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

Motion granted and appeal dismissed. Although Appellate Division order recites that its reversal was on the law and that findings of fact were affirmed, the order must be read in conjunc[749]*749tion with the opinion of that court (Code Crim. Pro., § 543-a; People v. De Courcy, 8 N Y 2d 192, 196; Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, pp. 536, 763-764). Since no exception to the trial court’s charge on self-defense was taken by defense counsel at the trial, no question of law on propriety of charge was presented to Appellate Division (Code Crim. Pro., § 420-a; People v. Rossi, 11 N Y 2d 379; People v. Cohen, 5 N Y 2d 282, 289). The Appellate Division did, however, have power to reverse and order a new trial in the interest of justice, notwithstanding the absence of an exception (Code Crim. Pro., § 527) and the court’s citation to section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reveals that the order below was the result of exercise of such discretion. . Consequently, since the Court of Appeals is unable to say that reversal was on the law alone, it lacks jurisdiction to review the order from which the People appeal (see People v. Rossi, supra; People v. Cohen, supra; People v. Redmond, 225 N. Y. 206; People v. Caverio, 1 N Y 2d 657).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 N.E.2d 395, 27 N.Y.2d 748, 314 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rainey-ny-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack