People v. Titus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Titus

88 A.D.2d 606, 449 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16793

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

DecidedMay 3, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 606 (People v. Titus) 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. Titus, 88 A.D.2d 606, 449 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), rendered August 20, 1980, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence as a second felony offender. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established. The identification of the defendant by the victim, which was not strong, was improperly bolstered by the testimony of the arresting officer (see People v Caserta, 19 NY2d 18, 21; People v Napoletano, 58 AD2d 83, 90). In addition the prosecutor on summation improperly shifted the burden of proof by asserting that another alibi witness should have been called to prove the defense (see People v Manson, 63 AD2d 686). Weinstein, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Boyers, 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 (Golden, J.), rendered August 20, 1980, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence as a second felony offender. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established. The identification of the defendant by the victim, which was not strong, was improperly bolstered by the testimony of the arresting officer (see People v Caserta, 19 NY2d 18, 21; People v Napoletano, 58 AD2d 83, 90). In addition the prosecutor on summation improperly shifted the burden of proof by asserting that another alibi witness should have been called to prove the defense (see People v Manson, 63 AD2d 686). Weinstein, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 606, 449 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-titus-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack