People v. Shuler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shuler

55 A.D.2d 609, 389 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15330

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 609 (People v. Shuler) 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. Shuler, 55 A.D.2d 609, 389 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered April 23, 1976, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, as an exercise of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. Despite extensive efforts to keep from the jury the knowledge that the defendant’s codefendant had been convicted of murder one year earlier, this information found its way into the jury room and was discussed during deliberations (see People v Gardella, 55 AD2d 607). The evidence against both defendants was almost identical, and the only logical verdict would have been a conviction of both defendants or an acquittal of both of them. Defendant’s substantial rights were prejudiced and he should receive a new trial (cf. People v Cocco, 305 NY 282). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hargett, Damiani and Hollen, 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, Westchester County, rendered April 23, 1976, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, as an exercise of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. Despite extensive efforts to keep from the jury the knowledge that the defendant’s codefendant had been convicted of murder one year earlier, this information found its way into the jury room and was discussed during deliberations (see People v Gardella, 55 AD2d 607). The evidence against both defendants was almost identical, and the only logical verdict would have been a conviction of both defendants or an acquittal of both of them. Defendant’s substantial rights were prejudiced and he should receive a new trial (cf. People v Cocco, 305 NY 282). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hargett, Damiani and Hollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 609, 389 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shuler-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack