People v. Strick

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Strick

204 N.E.2d 335, 15 N.Y.2d 692, 256 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1691

New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 7, 1965·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

*694 Judgment affirmed in a memorandum. Since defendant was on trial for a misdemeanor, his absence from the courtroom could not have been in and of itself basis for declaring a mistrial (Code Crim. Pro., § 356) but, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, in which identification of defendant was critical and his absence from the courtroom may well have been contrived for purposes of appeal, the Trial Judge was privileged, in the exercise of sound discretion, to grant a mistrial over the objection of defense counsel.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorbis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*694 Judgment affirmed in a memorandum. Since defendant was on trial for a misdemeanor, his absence from the courtroom could not have been in and of itself basis for declaring a mistrial (Code Crim. Pro., § 356) but, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, in which identification of defendant was critical and his absence from the courtroom may well have been contrived for purposes of appeal, the Trial Judge was privileged, in the exercise of sound discretion, to grant a mistrial over the objection of defense counsel.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorbis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan.

People v. Strick, 204 N.E.2d 335, 15 N.Y.2d 692, 256 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1691 (N.Y. 1965).

Pincite

204 N.E.2d 335 (People v. Strick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related