People v. Roldos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roldos

112 A.D.2d 388, 491 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56521

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

DecidedJuly 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 388 (People v. Roldos) 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. Roldos, 112 A.D.2d 388, 491 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered September 7, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact have been considered and determined to be established.

While the evidence adduced at trial supports the jury’s verdict, we are compelled to reverse the judgment of conviction because of our concern that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Although not objected to, the trial court’s charge on the presumption of innocence did not adequately convey to the jury the import and significance of this fundamental safeguard (1 CJI [NY] 6.10 at 246). Moreover, the trial court failed to charge the jury that every element of the crimes with which the defendant had been charged were required to be established beyond a reasonable doubt (CPL 70.20; People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126; People v Coleman, 70 AD2d 600). Finally, a dialogue continuing throughout the trial evidenced great hostility between the Trial Judge and defense counsel which may well have influenced the jury in its deliberations to defendant’s detriment.

[389]*389Under the circumstances, a new trial is in order. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and O’Connor, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered September 7, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact have been considered and determined to be established.

While the evidence adduced at trial supports the jury’s verdict, we are compelled to reverse the judgment of conviction because of our concern that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Although not objected to, the trial court’s charge on the presumption of innocence did not adequately convey to the jury the import and significance of this fundamental safeguard (1 CJI [NY] 6.10 at 246). Moreover, the trial court failed to charge the jury that every element of the crimes with which the defendant had been charged were required to be established beyond a reasonable doubt (CPL 70.20; People v Newman, 46 NY2d 126; People v Coleman, 70 AD2d 600). Finally, a dialogue continuing throughout the trial evidenced great hostility between the Trial Judge and defense counsel which may well have influenced the jury in its deliberations to defendant’s detriment.

[389]*389Under the circumstances, a new trial is in order. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 388, 491 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roldos-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack