People v. Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Santiago

21 A.D.2d 696, 250 N.Y.S.2d 624, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3719

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

DecidedMay 25, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 696 (People v. Santiago) 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. Santiago, 21 A.D.2d 696, 250 N.Y.S.2d 624, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 5, 1963 after a jury trial, convicting him of violation of the Public Health Law with respect to narcotic drugs, as a [697]*697felony, and of the same crime, as a misdemeanor, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. During his cross-examination the defendant was asked whether, on a prior occasion, he had been in possession of burglar’s tools. He answered in the affirmative, after his objection to the question had been overruled. On his redirect examination, he testified that the charge based on such possession had been dismissed after trial. In our opinion, while the question as put constituted error, nevertheless, under the circumstances here, and particularly in view of the clear evidence showing defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, such error did not affect any substantial right of the defendant. Hence, the judgment should be affirmed without regard to the error (Code Grim. Pro., § 542). Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, 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, rendered April 5, 1963 after a jury trial, convicting him of violation of the Public Health Law with respect to narcotic drugs, as a [697]*697felony, and of the same crime, as a misdemeanor, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. During his cross-examination the defendant was asked whether, on a prior occasion, he had been in possession of burglar’s tools. He answered in the affirmative, after his objection to the question had been overruled. On his redirect examination, he testified that the charge based on such possession had been dismissed after trial. In our opinion, while the question as put constituted error, nevertheless, under the circumstances here, and particularly in view of the clear evidence showing defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, such error did not affect any substantial right of the defendant. Hence, the judgment should be affirmed without regard to the error (Code Grim. Pro., § 542). Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 696, 250 N.Y.S.2d 624, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santiago-nyappdiv-1964.