People v. Randall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Randall

85 A.D.2d 755, 449 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16573

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 85 A.D.2d 755 (People v. Randall) 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. Randall, 85 A.D.2d 755, 449 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Fitzgerald, J.), rendered October 9, 1980, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree. The pertinent facts are set forth in the companion case oiPeople v Randall (85 AD2d 754). There, we concluded that evidence had been erroneously admitted and, therefore, a reversal was in order. Since that very same evidence, improperly before the jury, also implicated defendant Michael Randall, the latter’s conviction must also be reversed in the interests of justice {People vDonovan, 13 NY2d 148;People v Rodriguez, 11 NY2d 279). Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interests of justice, and a new trial ordered. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Main, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Fitzgerald, J.), rendered October 9, 1980, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree. The pertinent facts are set forth in the companion case oiPeople v Randall (85 AD2d 754). There, we concluded that evidence had been erroneously admitted and, therefore, a reversal was in order. Since that very same evidence, improperly before the jury, also implicated defendant Michael Randall, the latter’s conviction must also be reversed in the interests of justice {People vDonovan, 13 NY2d 148;People v Rodriguez, 11 NY2d 279). Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interests of justice, and a new trial ordered. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Main, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.2d 755, 449 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-randall-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack