People v. Singleton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Singleton

21 A.D.2d 907, 251 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3289

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 A.D.2d 907 (People v. Singleton) 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. Singleton, 21 A.D.2d 907, 251 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered November 7, 1963 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree and of criminally carrying concealed a loaded pistol, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. In our opinion, reversal is required because of the refusal of the trial court to submit the issue of self-defense to the jury (cf. Allison v. United States, 160 U. S. 203, 208-211). It is also our opinion that the court erred in not permitting defendant to testify as to his intent in committing the acts upon which the charges of robbery and assault were based (People v. Levan, 295 N. Y. 26, 33-34); and in failing to charge that the intent to steal was an essential element of the crime of robbery (People v. Koerber, 244 N. Y. 147, 153—154; People v. Best, 253 App. Div. 491, 493). We are also of the opinion that some of the prosecutor’s remarks during his summation exceeded permissible bounds and constituted error.' Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, 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 County Court, Nassau County, rendered November 7, 1963 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree and of criminally carrying concealed a loaded pistol, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial ordered. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. In our opinion, reversal is required because of the refusal of the trial court to submit the issue of self-defense to the jury (cf. Allison v. United States, 160 U. S. 203, 208-211). It is also our opinion that the court erred in not permitting defendant to testify as to his intent in committing the acts upon which the charges of robbery and assault were based (People v. Levan, 295 N. Y. 26, 33-34); and in failing to charge that the intent to steal was an essential element of the crime of robbery (People v. Koerber, 244 N. Y. 147, 153—154; People v. Best, 253 App. Div. 491, 493). We are also of the opinion that some of the prosecutor’s remarks during his summation exceeded permissible bounds and constituted error.' Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 907, 251 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-singleton-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack