People v. Sostre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sostre

37 A.D.2d 574, 322 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3943

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

DecidedJune 1, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 574 (People v. Sostre) 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. Sostre, 37 A.D.2d 574, 322 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 5, 1970, convicting him of certain narcotics crimes, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below are affirmed. In our opinion, defendant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial by the trial court. The record demonstrates that the court unduly interjected itself into the proceedings and undertook to gratuitously aid the prosecution’s case by its own interrogation of the prosecution witnesses and by comments. It took it upon itself to resolve alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and to rehabilitate the witnesses and belittled the contentions of the defense in charging the jury. In addition, the court erred in excluding from evidence an affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant by one of the police witnesses. It was admissible to the extent that it was a prior inconsistent statement, made in writing and under oath (Code Grim. Pro., § 8-a). Rabin, P. J., Munder, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, 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 November 5, 1970, convicting him of certain narcotics crimes, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below are affirmed. In our opinion, defendant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial by the trial court. The record demonstrates that the court unduly interjected itself into the proceedings and undertook to gratuitously aid the prosecution’s case by its own interrogation of the prosecution witnesses and by comments. It took it upon itself to resolve alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and to rehabilitate the witnesses and belittled the contentions of the defense in charging the jury. In addition, the court erred in excluding from evidence an affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant by one of the police witnesses. It was admissible to the extent that it was a prior inconsistent statement, made in writing and under oath (Code Grim. Pro., § 8-a). Rabin, P. J., Munder, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 574, 322 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sostre-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack