People v. Richardson

330 N.E.2d 649, 36 N.Y.2d 795, 369 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1837
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Richardson. Read the opinion of the Court — 41 N.Y.2d 886
New York Court of Appeals·Decided April 3, 1975·Published

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 the following questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Defendant-appellant argued that the failure to disclose the identity of the informant and the denial of an in camera hearing to determine if the informant possessed evidence which would exculpate defendant violated his rights under the United States Constitution. Defendant-appellant also argued that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel which violated a substantial right under the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that appellant’s constitutional rights were not violated. [See 36 NY2d 660.]

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

People v. Richardson, 330 N.E.2d 649, 36 N.Y.2d 795, 369 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1837 (N.Y. 1975).

330 N.E.2d 649 (People v. Richardson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Richardson
325 N.E.2d 165 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)